Firestone v. Galbreath

• Decision Date: 09 August 1995
• Docket Number: No. C2-89-840.,C2-89-840.
• Citation: 895 F. Supp. 917
• Parties: Douglas B. FIRESTONE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Daniel M. GALBREATH, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

895 F. Supp. 917

Douglas B. FIRESTONE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Daniel M. GALBREATH, et al., Defendants.

No. C2-89-840.

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division.

August 9, 1995.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Joan E. O'Dell, Washington, DC, Russell A. Firestone, Washington, DC, Jeffrey N. Kramer, Mansfield, Ohio, for plaintiff, Russell A. Firestone, III.

Robert Myron Kincaid, Jr., Baker & Hostetler, Columbus, OH, for Galbreath defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

GRAHAM, District Judge.

This is an action filed by Douglas B. Firestone and Amy del Valle, the Firestone grandchildren of Dorothy Firestone Galbreath, against Daniel Galbreath, individually, and doing business as Darby Dan Farms, as executor of the estates of Dorothy Galbreath and John W. Galbreath, and as trustee of the Dorothy Bryan Galbreath Family Trust ("the Family Trust"), the John W. Galbreath Trust, and John W. Galbreath's Darby Dan Farm Trust, Joan Galbreath Phillips, individually and doing business as Darby Dan Farms, James W. Phillips, Lizanne Galbreath, John W. Galbreath & Company, Inc., Galbreath-Ruffin Corp., Akron Redevelopment Corp., and Dolorees I. Dutoit (hereinafter the "Galbreath defendants"), the law firm of Bricker and Eckler, John Eckler, David C. Cummins, Charles H. Waterman, III, and John W. Phillips (hereinafter the "Bricker defendants") and the accounting firm of Bolon, Hart & Buehler, Inc. Rebecca Cummins, executrix of the estate of David Cummins, was substituted as a party for Mr. Cummins by an order filed on May 8, 1990. The other eight Firestone grandchildren were named as defendants in the original complaint but were later realigned as plaintiffs. Russell A. Firestone, III ("the plaintiff" or "Russell A. Firestone, III") is the only remaining plaintiff, and the Galbreath defendants and the Bricker defendants are the remaining defendants.

This action was originally filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which granted a motion for change of venue to this court. Various tort claims, including claims of tortious interference with an expectancy, were asserted against the defendants alleging that the defendants had wrongfully secured the transfer of assets belonging to Dorothy Galbreath while she was allegedly mentally incompetent, and that these assets would otherwise have constituted a part of Dorothy Galbreath's residual estate, which was bequeathed to the Family Trust and thus indirectly to the plaintiffs, who were beneficiaries of the Family Trust. In an opinion filed on July 3, 1990, this court granted defendants' motions to dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims. Firestone v. Galbreath, 747 F.Supp. 1556 (S.D.Ohio 1990). On September 23, 1992, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of all claims with the exception of the claims for tortious interference with an expectancy. The Sixth Circuit certified to the Ohio Supreme Court the issues of whether Ohio courts would recognize this tort and, if so, who could bring such an action. Firestone v. Galbreath, 976 F.2d 279 (6th Cir.1992). In an opinion rendered on August 11, 1993, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that Ohio would recognize this tort and that anyone who could prove the elements of the tort could bring such an action. Firestone v. Galbreath, 67 Ohio St.3d 87, 616 N.E.2d 202 (1993). On May 31, 1994, the Sixth Circuit remanded the claims of tortious interference with an expectancy to this court for further proceedings. Firestone v. Galbreath, 25 F.3d 323 (6th Cir. 1994). On October 11, 1994, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint with this court, asserting various claims of tortious interference with an expectancy.

This matter is now before the court on the motions of the Galbreath and Bricker defendants for summary judgment.

Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." See LaPointe v. United Autoworkers Local 600, 8 F.2d 376, 378 (6th Cir.1993); Osborn v. Ashland County Bd. of Alcohol, Drug Addiction and Mental Health Servs., 979 F.2d 1131, 1133 (6th Cir.1992) (per curiam). The party that moves for summary judgment has the burden of showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact in the case at issue, LaPointe, 8 F.3d at 378, which may be accomplished by pointing out to the court that the nonmoving party lacks evidence to support an essential element of its case. Barnhart v. Pickrel, Schaeffer & Ebeling Co., 12 F.3d 1382, 1389 (6th Cir.1993). In response, the nonmoving party must present "significant probative evidence" to demonstrate that "there is more than some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Moore v. Philip Morris Cos., 8 F.3d 335, 339-40 (6th Cir.1993). "The mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). See generally Booker v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., 879 F.2d 1304, 1310 (6th Cir.1989). The trial court "no longer has a duty to search the entire record to establish that it is bereft of a genuine issue of material fact." Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1479 (6th Cir.1989).

In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, "this Court must determine whether `the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.'" Patton v. Bearden, 8 F.3d 343, 346 (6th Cir.1993) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-53, 106 S.Ct. at 2512). The evidence, all facts, and any inferences that may permissibly be drawn from the facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); see Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 112 S.Ct. 2072, 119 L.Ed.2d 265 (1992). However, "the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff's position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. at 2512; see Gregory v. Hunt, 24 F.3d 781, 784 (6th Cir.1994). Finally, a district court considering a motion for summary judgment may not weigh evidence or make credibility determinations. Adams v. Metiva, 31 F.3d 375, 378 (6th Cir.1994).

Both the Galbreath and Bricker defendants assert that plaintiff's claims of tortious interference with an expectancy are barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Defendants contend that this action is barred by decisions of the Franklin County, Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals rendered on October 6, 1992 and December 3, 1992 and by decisions of the Franklin County, Ohio Probate Court rendered on March 14, 1995 and May 10, 1995.

Federal courts must apply state rules of preclusion in determining the effect of state court judgments. Kremer v. Chemical Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 102 S.Ct. 1883, 72 L.Ed.2d 262 (1982); Polk v. Yellow Freight System, Inc., 801 F.2d 190 (6th Cir. 1986). Ohio courts recognize the doctrines of res judicata or claim preclusion and collateral estoppel or issue preclusion.

Under the doctrine of res judicata, an existing final judgment rendered on the merits, without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive of rights, questions and facts in issue, as to the parties and their privies, in all other actions in the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction. Norwood v. McDonald, 142 Ohio St. 299, 27 O.O. 240, 52 N.E.2d 67 (1943). A final judgment is a complete bar to any subsequent action upon the same cause of action between the parties or those in privity with them. Whitehead v. General Tel. Co., 20 Ohio St.2d 108, 49 O.O.2d 435, 254 N.E.2d 10 (1969).

The application of res judicata requires: 1) a prior adjudication upon the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; 2) an identity or mutuality of the parties between the former and latter cases; and 3) that the cause of action, claims or issues between the two cases are identical. Goodson v. McDonough Power Equip., Inc., 2 Ohio St.3d 193, 2 OBR 732, 443 N.E.2d 978 (1983); Whitehead, syllabus paragraph two.

The term "parties" includes those who are directly interested in the subject matter of the suit, and who have a right to make a defense, control the proceedings, adduce evidence and appeal the proceedings. Wright v. Schick, 134 Ohio St. 193, 12 O.O. 6, 16 N.E.2d 321 (1938); Quinn v. State, ex rel. Leroy, 118 Ohio St. 48, 160 N.E. 453 (1928). A person, even though not a party to the judgment, may nevertheless be connected with it by his interest in the result of that litigation and by his active participation therein, so as to be bound by the judgment. Quinn, 118 Ohio St. at 53, 160 N.E. at 455. In determining whether there is an identity of parties, a court must look behind the nominal parties to the substance of the cause to determine the real parties in interest. Trautwein v. Sorgenfrei, 58 Ohio St.2d 493, 12 O.O.3d 403, 391 N.E.2d 326 (1979). The character of a party is determined not by his position on the docket or in the caption of the case, but by reference to his relation to the other parties, as shown by his interests involved in the case. Wright, 134 Ohio St. at 197, 12 O.O. at 8, 16 N.E.2d at 324. Therefore, res judicata may arise between codefendants if they represented adverse interests in a former proceeding as to an issue and such issue was in fact litigated. Id.; Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Federal Express, Inc., 136...