Buckner v. Gilliland

• Decision Date: 10 February 2012
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:11 CV 2144.
• Citation: 846 F.Supp.2d 799
• Parties: Kurt BUCKNER, Plaintiff, v. Edith GILLILAND, and Randy J. Parker, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

846 F.Supp.2d 799

Kurt BUCKNER, Plaintiff,

v.Edith GILLILAND, and Randy J. Parker, Defendants.

Case No. 1:11 CV 2144.

United States District Court,

N.D. Ohio,

Eastern Division.

Feb. 10, 2012.

David A. Forrest, Jeffries, Kube, Forrest & Monteleone, Sandra J. Rosenthal, Cleveland, OH, Robert Zelvy, Law Office of Robert Zelvy, Sandusky, OH, for Plaintiff.

Cheri B. Hass, Stacy V. Pollock, Downes, Fishel, Hass & Kim, Columbus, OH, for Defendants.

Memorandum of Opinion and Order

PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN, District Judge.

This is a diversity tort action brought by Plaintiff Kurt Buckner against Defendants Edith Gilliland and Randy J. Parker. Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and Amended Complaint. (Doc. 9).¹ For the reasons stated below, defendants' motion to dismiss is denied as to plaintiff's first and second claims for relief and granted as to plaintiff's third claim for relief.

Facts

Plaintiff alleges the following facts. Plaintiff resides in Alamance County, North Carolina. From approximately 2007 through November 30, 2010, plaintiff was employed by Family Life Counseling and Psychiatric Services (hereinafter Family Life). At times relevant to the events in the complaint, plaintiff served as a supervisor for Family Life's multisystemic therapy program (MST program) and as a Mental Health Liaison Interventionist for Richland County Children Services (RCCS). At the time plaintiff served as Family Life's MST supervisor, “most if not all of [Family Life's] MST cases involved RCCS youths and /or their families.” (Am Complt., ¶ 10.) During the time of his employment with Family Life, the majority of plaintiff's “job responsibilities concerned youths and families involved with RCCS as well as on-site assessments at RCCS.” ( Id. at ¶ 11.)

Defendant Edith Gilliland is employed by RCCS. Defendant Randy J. Parker is the Executive Director of RCCS.

On the morning of October 14, 2010, while plaintiff was in the parking lot of RCCS, he observed Gilliland drive into the lot in her jeep. Plaintiff parked his vehicle next to Gilliland's “with the intention of speaking to her about a case in which she had presented inaccurate information to the Juvenile Court.” ( Id. at ¶ 15.) Plaintiff alleges that he identified himself to Gilliland and told her that he wanted to speak with her about the “Jane Doe” case. Gilliland told plaintiff she felt it odd that he was approaching her in the parking lot about the matter and she felt that plaintiff was stalking her. Plaintiff immediately ended the encounter and drove away. ( Id. at ¶¶ 16–18.)

After the encounter, Gilliland allegedly reported to RCCS that plaintiff had “blocked” her in the parting lot. Shortly thereafter, RCCS sent a fax to Family Life stating that plaintiff was not welcome at the RCCS building and that he would immediately be removed from the cases on which he was working with RCCS families. Parker allegedly made this decision to prohibit plaintiff from entering the RCCS building and working on RCCS cases as a result of Gilliland's statement that plaintiff had “blocked” her in. However, plaintiff alleges that Gilliland's statement was false. He alleges that plaintiff did not block Gilliland in the parking lot as she stated. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of defendants' conduct toward him, he was “compelled” to resign his position at Family Services. ( Id. at ¶¶ 19–23.)

Arising from these facts, plaintiff alleges three claims for relief. The first claim for relief is for defamation against Gilliland. Plaintiff alleges that Gilliland's statement to RCCS that plaintiff had “blocked” her in “was false or was made with reckless disregard as to whether it was false or not.” ( Id., ¶ 22.) Plaintiff alleges that Parker made the decision to prohibit him from entering the RCCS building and working on cases with RCCS clients as a result of Gilliland's false statement and, as a direct and proximate result of Gilliland's publication of the false statement, plaintiff suffered a loss of past and future earnings, emotional distress, and damage to his reputation. Plaintiff alleges that Gilliland's actions “were wilful, malicious, and in reckless disregard of [his] legal rights.” ( Id. at ¶ 25.)

The second claim for relief is for “intentional interference” against Parker. Plaintiff alleges that prior to his encounter with Gilliland, plaintiff “had brought to RCCS's attention that Defendant Gilliland had inaccurately represented during a hearing in the Richland County Juvenile Court that a ‘Jane Doe's' mother had failed to cooperate with [an] MST referral” when, in fact, no MST referral had been made at the time of the hearing. ( Id. at ¶¶ 27, 28.) Plaintiff informed RCCS that he intended to speak with the “Jane Doe's” attorney regarding this issue after plaintiff learned that RCCS refused to take steps to correct the juvenile court record as to Gilliland's inaccurate representation. ( Id. at ¶ 29.) Plaintiff alleges that Parker “used” Gilliland's “defamatory statement” about him “as an excuse to get rid of [him] because of [his] pursuit of the matter involving Defendant Gilliland's representation in Juvenile Court.” ( Id. at ¶ 30.) Plaintiff alleges that “Parker intentionally interfered with [his] employment with [Family Services]” in this manner. ( Id. at ¶ 31.)

Plaintiff's third claim for relief alleges “negligent investigation” by Parker. Plaintiff alleges that prior to sending the fax communication to Family Services (stating that plaintiff was no longer welcome in its building and would be taken off RCCS cases), no one at RCCS inquired of plaintiff or his employer to determine the truth of Gilliland's statement or her rendition of the events. Plaintiff alleges that Parker “had a duty to use reasonable care to investigate whether or not Defendant Gilliland's statement[s] respecting her encounter with [plaintiff] were true” and that Parker breached this duty in negligently failing to conduct a “proper investigation.” ( Id. at ¶ 40.) Plaintiff alleges Parker's actions were “willful, malicious, and in reckless disregard for Plaintiff's legal rights.” ( Id. at ¶ 42.)

Standard of Review

A motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of a complaint. In order to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint's factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint's allegations are true. Ass'n of Cleveland Fire Fighters v. City of Cleveland, Ohio, 502 F.3d 545, 548 (6th Cir.2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). That is, the complaint must contain sufficient factual material to state a claim that is “plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.

Discussion

Gilliland and Parker argue that all of plaintiff's claims fail because they are entitled to immunity under Ohio Revised Code § 2744.03(A)(6), which affords employees of a political subdivision immunity from liability in tort unless: “(a) [t]he employee'sacts or omissions were manifestly outside the scope of the employee's employment or official responsibilities; (b) [t]he employee's acts or omissions were with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner; or (c) [c]ivil liability is expressly imposed upon the employee by a section of the Revised Code.” Defendants argue that plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts to establish that defendants' actions were with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or taken in a wanton or reckless manner such that statutory immunity would not exist.

Defendants argue that plaintiff's claims are insufficient for additional reasons. They argue that plaintiff's defamation claim fails because Gilliland's communication to her employer is also protected by a qualified privileged applicable to defamation defendants. Defendants argue that even if Gilliland falsely told Parker that plaintiff had “blocked” her in, plaintiff's complaint does not allege sufficient facts to support his assertion that Gilliland acted willfully, maliciously, and recklessly so as to overcome a qualified privilege.

Likewise, defendants contend that Parker is entitled to a qualified privilege and that plaintiff “has failed to plead any facts to suggest that Defendant Parker acted with actual malice.” Defendants argue the intentional inference claim against Parker also fails because plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts to suggest that Parker knew of an employment contract between plaintiff and Family Life, that Parker sought to procure a breach of the employment relationship between plaintiff and Family Life, or that Parker had the ability to influence that relationship. (Def. Br. at 10.)

Finally, defendants contend plaintiff's third claim for relief fails because Ohio does not recognize a tort of “negligent investigation” and, even if such an action existed under Ohio law, Parker has statutory immunity under Ohio Revised Code § 2744.03(A)(6).

Plaintiff disputes that his claims are barred by statutory immunity and qualified privilege because he has alleged that defendants acted intentionally, willfully, and maliciously. In particular, he argues that it can be inferred from the facts alleged that Gilliland made a false statement about him to Parker because “she wanted to protect herself with respect to [plaintiff's] pursuit of the matter respecting the Jane Doe Case.” (Opp. at 4.) Plaintiff co...