817 N.E.2d 118 | Ohio Ct. App. | 2004
Lead Opinion
{¶ 3} Defendant-appellee New World claimed to have been improperly identified in the amended complaint as WJW-TV8. It filed a motion to dismiss some of plaintiffs' claims against it. Specifically, New World argued that the court should dismiss all claims made more than one year after the allegedly defamatory publications. The complaint alleged that New World made three defamatory statements in March and June 1998; New World contended that claims relating to these statements were time-barred. In addition, New World argued that another allegedly defamatory statement was true as a matter of law. The court granted New World's motion on November 20, 2000, stating that "paragraph 105 of the amended complaint is stricken." The court subsequently held that "paragraph 105 is deemed to have been only partially dismissed as to the issues raised in New World's motion to dismiss." As a result, two alleged defamatory statements remained at issue.
{¶ 4} New World answered then filed a motion for summary judgment on March 5, 2002. The court granted this motion in part on August 22, 2002. It found that one of the two statements was subject to an innocent construction and therefore was not defamatory as a matter of law. However, the court found sufficient evidence to submit to a jury Donna Stohlmann's defamation claim concerning a news report by New World about the substance of a criminal charge to which Stohlmann pleaded guilty. The court explained the basis for this ruling more fully in an order denying New World's motion for reconsideration.
{¶ 5} The case was set for trial on February 24, 2003. Just a few days before the scheduled trial, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her complaint, without prejudice.
{¶ 6} New World then moved the court to impose sanctions upon plaintiffs and their counsel for "frivolous conduct" pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 7} New World responded to this order with a "Statement of Fees and Expenses" based upon billing statements which were allegedly introduced by an attorney-witness at the hearing on the motion for sanctions; these billing statements have not been included in the record, apparently at New World's request.2 The Statement of Fees and Expenses concluded that New World had incurred $11,665.50 in attorney's fees plus $24 in expenses on the motion to dismiss, and an additional $15,475 for attorney's fees on the motion for sanctions, for a total of $27,164.50. The court determined that New World had "failed to demonstrate with particularity how their claim for fees relates to services necessary to the aspect of the motion to dismiss for which judgment was granted, or why the amounts charged were reasonable." However, the court awarded New World attorney's fees of $2000 against plaintiffs' counsel, because plaintiffs conceded that $2000 was a reasonable fee.
{¶ 9} demonstrate that he or she incurred additional attorney's fees as a direct, identifiable result of defending the frivolous conduct in particular." Wiltberger v. Davis (1996),
{¶ 10} Even though much of its brief is devoted to an explanation of how the entire prosecution of this case was frivolous, New World does not challenge the common pleas court's decision that the only frivolous conduct in this case occurred when plaintiffs' counsel filed claims which were not warranted by existing law and which were dismissed on New World's motion. This conduct sets the parameters for the court's award.
{¶ 11} The common pleas court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that New World had failed to demonstrate that this frivolous conduct caused it to incur all of the fees it claimed it incurred for preparation of the motion to dismiss. First, the statement of fees3 includes more than two pages of items which predate the amended complaint in which New World was allegedly named. The total of these items — which cannot possibly relate to the motion to dismiss filed on New World's behalf — exceeds $3600, and includes charges for motions prepared for another defendant,4 and charges relating to a proposed motion for a more definite statement and analysis of "counterclaim issues" which were never filed on New World's behalf and had nothing to do with the motion to dismiss.
{¶ 12} There are $1279 in charges for various attorneys' review and analysis of the amended complaint between October 2 and 25, 2000; the purpose of this review is not directly related to the dismissal motion. Another $266 in charges for conferences concerning plaintiffs' request for an extension of time to respond to the motion to dismiss, and for review of the court's ruling, also were not clearly incurred in defending the claims which were found to be frivolous. Nearly $900 of the requested fees relate to the transcription of certain broadcasts. This service cannot be characterized as an attorney's fee. Based upon our own review of New World's statement of fees, we agree with the common pleas court that New World failed to show that the fees and other amounts it sought were "a direct, identifiable result of defending the frivolous conduct in particular."
{¶ 13} The issues upon which New World sought to dismiss some of the claims against it were hardly novel. The statute of limitations defense for defamation claims is clear and well defined; this aspect of its motion to dismiss did not require extensive research. Nor was the truth defense based upon the plaintiff's guilty plea in a criminal proceeding a particularly challenging issue. Consequently, we find it difficult to justify the $969 in fees for preliminary memoranda and more than $4500 in fees charged by four different attorneys to draft, review and revise this simple 8 page motion. We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that a $2000 fee for this motion was reasonable.
{¶ 14} New World further asserts that it was entitled to an award of fees for its prosecution of the motion for sanctions. Although a court has the discretion to award fees incurred in prosecuting a motion for sanctions, there is no requirement that the court include such fees in its award under R.C.
Affirmed.
It is ordered that appellees recover of appellants their costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Celebrezze, Jr., J. Concurs. Corrigan, A.J. Dissents.
(SEE DISSENTING OPINION ATTACHED)
"MR. CLAY: Your Honor, before I forget, we would ask that Defendant's Exhibits 2 [a "summary of adverse effects" of this litigation on New World] and 3 [attorney billing records] be designated confidential and placed under seal by the Court and not included in the public record.
"THE COURT: That's all right.
"MR. CLAY: Thank you.
"THE COURT: You make sure they are handled in that way because I'm not going to do anything.
"MR. CLAY: Fine, Judge."
Dissenting Opinion
{¶ 15} I respectfully dissent from the majority and would reverse the trial court's award of attorney fees of $2,000 to New World in connection with its successful motions to dismiss and for sanctions. There is no evidentiary correlation between the attorney fees New World presented at the hearing, which amounted to $27,164.50, and the $2,000 the trial court awarded. Because the trial court acted arbitrarily and abused its discretion, I would reverse the trial court's whimsical award of $2,000.