Thomas v. Thomas, 2014 Ohio 1714

Plaintiff David Thomas (pro se) filed a small-claims complaint against two siblings alleging they excluded him from parents’ funeral arrangements and withheld the mother’s will, seeking $3,000.
Thomas moved twice to transfer the matter from the Small Claims Division to the regular docket; the court denied transfer citing Loc.R. 37 (transfer only on court motion, defendant motion, or a counterclaim exceeding small-claims jurisdiction).
At a hearing, the siblings orally moved to dismiss Thomas’ complaint for failure to state a claim; the trial court granted the motion and dismissed the action.
Thomas appealed the dismissal, arguing his complaint pleaded intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
The Court of Appeals reviewed the dismissal de novo and treated the pro se pleadings liberally but held pro se litigants remain subject to ordinary pleading rules.
The court concluded the complaint failed to allege the elements of IIED (including any allegation of serious emotional distress) and affirmed dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the complaint stated a cognizable claim (IIED) sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss	Thomas argued his siblings’ exclusion and withholding of the will amounted to intentional infliction of emotional distress warranting $3,000	Siblings moved to dismiss for failure to state any cognizable claim	Court held complaint failed to plead IIED elements (no allegation of serious emotional distress; conduct not sufficiently pleaded as extreme/outrageous); dismissal affirmed

Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79 (2004) (motion-to-dismiss review is de novo and factual allegations are assumed true)
Kincaid v. Erie Ins. Co., 128 Ohio St.3d 322 (2010) (Ohio is a notice-pleading jurisdiction; Civ.R. 8(A) requires short, plain statement)
Phung v. Waste Mgt., Inc., 71 Ohio St.3d 408 (1994) (elements required to prove intentional infliction of emotional distress)