2018 Ohio 4914
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Michael Thomason (plaintiff) visited an AT&T store in Ohio on April 13–14, 2014; disputes arose when AT&T employees would not accept a concealed-carry permit as identification and requested a driver’s license to access his wife's account.
- Confrontation escalated: employees reported that Thomason yelled profanities, referenced carrying a gun, and patted his pocket; employees called 9‑1‑1 and gave voluntary statements to the sheriff.
- Deputies arrested Thomason; he pleaded no contest to an amended disorderly conduct charge as part of a disposition and later the conviction/charge was vacated per the journal entry notation.
- Thomason sued in federal court (including §1983 claims); excessive-force claims against the sheriff’s deputies were dismissed, state claims (malicious prosecution and abuse of process against AT&T) were remanded.
- On remand, the trial court granted summary judgment for AT&T on malicious prosecution and abuse of process; Thomason appeals only the abuse of process dismissal.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding Thomason failed to show that AT&T perverted the criminal proceeding after it was instituted to accomplish an ulterior purpose.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thomason proved abuse of process | AT&T employees initiated a false 9‑1‑1 call and statements to provoke prosecution in retaliation for his insults, amounting to perversion of process | AT&T contends employees did not pervert any proceeding post‑commencement; any statements were prior reports and there is no evidence of ulterior motive or participation in prosecution | Affirmed: no evidence AT&T perverted the proceeding after initiation or sought an ulterior purpose; abuse of process fails |
| Whether probable cause affects abuse‑of‑process claim | Thomason argues his prosecution lacked probable cause (supporting alternative theories) | AT&T argues abuse of process requires a proceeding perverted after proper commencement; challenging probable cause undermines abuse claim | Court: plaintiff’s repeated assertion of lack of probable cause is fatal to abuse‑of‑process claim; abuse claim requires alleged perversion after lawful commencement |
| Whether AT&T employees’ 9‑1‑1 call / statements satisfy perversion element | Plaintiff treats the initial reports/calls as the misconduct constituting perversion | AT&T and court note perversion must be an improper use of process after institution (e.g., to extract money/other advantage) | Held: initial reports do not show post‑institution perversion for an ulterior purpose; insufficient evidence |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Plaintiff contends factual disputes preclude summary judgment | AT&T argues no genuine issue on perversion/ulterior motive or resulting damages | Affirmed: viewing record most favorably to Thomason, reasonable minds can only conclude no abuse of process evidence existed |
Key Cases Cited
- Yaklevich v. Kemp, Schaeffer & Rowe Co., L.P.A., 68 Ohio St.3d 294 (Ohio 1994) (establishes elements of abuse of process and distinction from malicious prosecution)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (summary judgment standard; de novo appellate review)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (party moving for summary judgment bears initial burden; nonmoving party must produce specific facts showing genuine issue)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (Ohio 1977) (summary judgment requirements and viewing evidence in favor of nonmovant)
- Froehlich v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Health, 114 Ohio St.3d 286 (Ohio 2007) (elements of malicious prosecution in criminal setting)
- Hershey v. Edelman, 187 Ohio App.3d 400 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010) (abuse of process requires that the proceeding, though properly commenced, be perverted afterward to accomplish an ulterior purpose)