Woods v. Sharkin
2022 Ohio 1752
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Plaintiff Doug Woods, a landlord, sued 22 defendants (former tenants, attorneys, and media) alleging defamation, false light, conspiracy, tortious interference, emotional distress, property damage, and contract claims arising from eviction litigation and a News Channel 5 broadcast about rising evictions.
- The broadcast interviewed three former tenants, Judge Nicastro, and Woods; Woods attached a transcript/website printout to his complaint.
- Several former tenants and others posted flyers and social-media statements criticizing Woods; Woods claimed those statements were false and harmed his business and contracts.
- Multiple defendants moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) or 12(C); Woods moved for default against non-answering defendants. The trial court denied default, sua sponte dismissed many non-answering defendants, and granted several dispositive motions, including dismissal of the media defendants.
- On appeal the Eighth District affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded: it upheld dismissal of the media defendants but reversed the sua sponte dismissal of properly served non-answering defendants (for lack of notice) and revived certain claims against specific defendants (Deener and Clos).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court denial of default and sua sponte dismissal of non-answering defendants | Woods argued default judgment was proper under Civ.R. 55 because defendants were served but did not respond | Trial court justified denial/exercise of discretion because complaints lacked merit and some defendants were transient; court dismissed under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) sua sponte | Denial of default was within discretion, but sua sponte dismissal without prior notice/opportunity to respond was error as to properly served non-answering defendants; reversed as to those defendants (except unserved parties) |
| Dismissal of media defendants on defamation and publication-based claims | Woods contended broadcast conveyed false and defamatory implications and used imagery/tone to place him in false light | Media argued report was balanced, presented both sides, and was substantially true; First Amendment protections apply; no actual malice pleaded | Affirmed: broadcast presented both sides and was substantially true; publication-based claims failed and actual malice not sufficiently alleged; other non-defamation publication claims barred by same First Amendment principles |
| Dismissal of claims against Deener (social media/flyers) | Woods alleged Deener posted verifiable false statements (e.g., black mold), helped distribute defamatory flyers, and conspired to harm his business | Deener argued statements were opinions and plaintiff pleaded only conclusory allegations | Reversed in part: complaint sufficiently pleaded defamation per se/per quod, false light, tortious interference (business and contractual), intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy; invasion-upon-seclusion, nuisance, trespass, and negligence claims dismissed |
| Clos’s Civ.R. 12(C) judgment on the pleadings | Woods asserted Clos falsely told a tenant the house had mold and concealed remediation, causing lease breakup and inspection | Clos argued statements were opinion or nonactionable; moved under 12(C) | Reversed in part: defamation per se/per quod and tortious interference with contractual relationship survive 12(C); other claims dismissed |
| Effect of lack of service on certain named defendants (Boulevardez, UFC) | Woods sought relief against all named defendants | Defendants not served within one year argued dismissal appropriate | Affirmed: dismissal proper for Boulevardez and UFC because they were not served within one year under Civ.R. 3(A) |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Chem. Soc. v. Leadscope, Inc., 133 Ohio St.3d 366 (Ohio 2012) (news reports summarizing litigated disputes that include both parties’ statements may be nonactionable as a matter of law)
- Shifflet v. Thomson Newspapers (Ohio), 69 Ohio St.2d 179 (Ohio 1982) (truth is an absolute defense to defamation; minor inaccuracies do not defeat substantial truth)
- Vail v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co., 72 Ohio St.3d 279 (Ohio 1995) (attachments incorporated into complaint may be considered on a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) review; First Amendment limits other tort claims based on publications)
- Welling v. Weinfeld, 113 Ohio St.3d 464 (Ohio 2007) (elements of false-light invasion of privacy and requirement of actual malice for public-figure-type claims)
- Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, 501 U.S. 496 (U.S. 1991) (substantial truth doctrine: minor inaccuracies do not render a report false when gist or sting is true)