Huff v. Firstenergy Corp.

• Decision Date: 17 September 2013
• Docket Number: Case No. 5:12CV2583.
• Parties: Reggie HUFF, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FIRSTENERGY CORP., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

972 F.Supp.2d 1018

Reggie HUFF, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.FIRSTENERGY CORP., et al., Defendants.

Case No. 5:12CV2583.

United States District Court,

N.D. Ohio,

Eastern Division.

Sept. 17, 2013.

Lisa G. Huff, Minneapolis, MN, pro se.

Reggie D. Huff, Cortland, OH, pro se.

Louis A. Chaiten, Stephen G. Sozio, Jones Day, Cleveland, OH, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SARA LIOI, District Judge.

On October 16, 2012, plaintiffs, Reggie Huff and Lisa Huff, filed a pro se complaint in this Court alleging: violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and CorruptOrganizations Act (“federal RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(b), (c), and (d); violations of Ohio's “corrupt activity” law (“Ohio RICO”), Ohio Rev.Code § 2923.32; ¹ conspiracy under federal and Ohio law; and violations of their civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. No. 1, Complaint). Plaintiffs originally named eleven defendants (not counting John Doe defendants), including corporate entities, private individuals, and current and former Ohio Supreme Court justices. The complaint further alleged a vast conspiracy to deprive plaintiffs of their right to a fair disposition of a personal injury action in state court.

The allegations in the 43–page complaint are confusing, rambling, and, at times, inflammatory. Although much thought and attention appears to have gone into its preparation, the complaint is ultimately held together by a string of conclusory allegations.² These allegations were immediately met with a motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 7), which is the subject of this Memorandum Opinion The motion is fully briefed and ripe for resolution (Doc. Nos. 12, 15, opposition brief and reply, respectively).

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Underlying State Court Action

The facts and circumstances of this RICO-based fraud case can be traced to a personal injury proceeding originating in the court of common pleas sitting in Trumbull County, Ohio.³ In June 2004, plaintiff Lisa Huff was injured by a falling tree limb near utility lines owned and maintained by defendant Ohio Edison. According to the complaint, the tree in question was located on property that was covered by an easement owned by Ohio Edison. (Compl. ¶ 35.)

Plaintiffs filed suit against Ohio Edison, defendant FirstEnergy Corporation, and Asplundh Tree Expert Company, the company hired to inspect and maintain trees and vegetation along Ohio Edison's power lines. The state trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that they owed no duty to Lisa Huff. With respect to Ohio Edison, the trial court found that it did not have actual or constructive notice of any defects in the tree or that it posed any threat of injury. Huff v. FirstEnergy Corp., 130 Ohio St.3d 196, 199, 957 N.E.2d 3 (2011). The state court of appeals reversed, finding that there was a question of fact as to whether Lisa Huff had enforceable rights under the contract between Ohio Edison Company and Asplundh as a third-party beneficiary. Id.

The Ohio Supreme Court first denied discretionary review. On reconsideration, it granted jurisdiction, and reversed the court of appeals, finding that the underlying tree and vegetation maintenance contract did not create any duty to Lisa Huff. Id. In reaching this conclusion, the court emphasized that “[t]he contract was not entered into for the general benefit of the public walking on public roads. It was designed to support the electrical service offered by Ohio Edison.” Id. at 201, 957 N.E.2d 3.

B. Federal Racketeering and Conspiracy

On October 16 2012, plaintiffs ⁴ filed suit in this Court against various private and public entities and individuals. The private entities and individuals included: FirstEnergy Corp., Ohio Edison, FirstEnergy PAC FSL, Leila Vespoli, Anthony Alexander, and James Pearson (hereinafter “FirstEnergy defendants”). It is alleged that defendant Vespoli is General Counsel for FirstEnergy Corp., Ohio Edison, FirstEnergy PAC FSL and Senior Executive VP for FirstEnergy Corp. (Compl. ¶ 30.) The complaint further provides that defendant Alexander is President and Chief Executive Officer of FirstEnergy Corp., and defendant Pearson serves as Treasurer for FirstEnergy PAC FSL. ( Id. ¶¶ 31–32.) The public individuals, whom plaintiffs described as “nominal defendants,” include former Justice Robert Cupp, former Justice Lundgerg–Straton, Justice Terrance O'Donnell, Justice Judith Lanzinger, and Chief Justice Maureen O'Conner (hereinafter “judicial defendants”). In an opinion and order dated February 20, 2013, 2013 WL 639328, the Court dismissed the judicial defendants from this action on the basis of judicial immunity. (Doc. No. 18.) ⁵

Plaintiffs have alleged a conspiracy between judicial defendants and FirstEnergy defendants to influence litigation involving FirstEnergy defendants. In the complaint, plaintiffs aver:

Plaintiffs, as life long registered Republicans, are suing the Defendants for using large campaign cash payments ..., including an illegal “STRAW DONOR” scheme (See U.S. v. O'DONNELL, 608 F.3d 546 (9th cir. June 14 2010)), paid to a super majority of Republican Justices of the Ohio Supreme Court in order to launder bribes in the form of “stream of benefits” with the specific intent to retain the Ohio Supreme Court Justice's services for specific favorable action on a “as needed” basis[.]

(Compl. ¶ 12.) ⁶

1. “Straw Donor” Scheme

According to the complaint, FirstEnergy defendants relied on bribes and a “straw donor” scheme to ensure that the judicial defendants would ultimately rule in Ohio Edison's favor in Lisa Huff's personal injury action. The straw donor scheme was allegedly executed by Vespoli and Alexander, who would (along with their spouses) make individual donations to the judicial defendants in an apparent effort to circumvent the monetary limits placed on corporate campaign contributions. ( Id. ¶¶ 38–39.) Specifically, the complaint provides that:

In the weeks that preceded the foreseeable tree incident on June 14th 2004,which was well publicized, ... LELIA L. VESPOLI & ANTHONY J. ALEXANDER became aware of the case and concerned that the unique facts might be problematic for FIRSTENERGY & OHIO EDISON COMPANY'S interests. Defendants VESPOLI & ALEXANDER, (Also referred to from time to time as the Executive Defendants) being both intelligent and experienced Ohio Attorneys, anticipated that the lawsuit could be pushed all the way to the Ohio Supreme Court. Defendants VESPOLI & ALEXANDER, and others yet to be identified employees and/or individuals, recognized a need to have the Ohio Supreme Court destroy the suit no matter what path it took in getting to that Court. Plaintiffs allege that their lawsuit was not the only future legal issue that the [FirstEnergy defendants] were hoping to influence at the Ohio Supreme Court nor is the initial motivation ultimately relevant to this cause.

The Executive Defendants were fully aware of the effectiveness and value of lobbying the executive and legislative branches of government and the value of large campaign cash contributions in gaining and increasing lobbying access to public officials while in power. The Executive Defendants were extremely well compensated from Defendant FIRSTENERGY, in part, for finding and executing ways to enhance its influence footprint. At that time Defendants VESPOLI & ALEXANDER, became frustrated that the judiciary was the one branch of the government that they could not legally lobby and that campaign contribution limits were comparatively low which reduced their ability to stand out on the [judicial defendants] donor lists which typically put largest donors at the top of the list. Due to this unacceptable limitation on influence Defendants VESPOLI & ALEXANDER devised a scheme and artifice to thwart the very purpose for the unique contribution limits for judicial candidates through a straw donor scheme in violation of Ohio Revised Code 3517.13(G)(2)(a) & 3517.13(G)(1).

(Compl. ¶¶ 37–38.)

Plaintiffs aver that the “so-called personal contributions” of Vespoli, Alexander, and their spouses “align[ed] perfectly” with FirstEnergy PAC FSL contributions, and suggest that unidentified evidence “supports allegations that spouses likely did not write separate checks or transfer funds in their own names independently, which is legal only as a segregated act from the overall pattern of unlawful conduct.” (Compl. ¶ 39(A) and (D).) According to plaintiffs, “[t]his fact supports the conclusion that contributions were not the product of an independent family decision and did not involve actual losses to the spouse as they were to be reimbursed or had already been remunerated by FIRSTENERGY.” ( Id. ¶ 39(D).) Plaintiffs conclude that the “straw donor scheme is a linchpin anchoring the motives and machinations of a true scheme to defraud the public, the State of Ohio, the United States and the Plaintiffs of honest services by and through the bribery of public officials, namely a super majority of the Ohio Supreme Court Justices.” ( Id. ¶ 41.)

2. Bribery Scheme

With respect to the related bribery scheme, the complaint provides:

This case involves the allegation of a quid pro quo between the [FirstEnergy] Defendants ... and five Republican Justices of the Ohio Supreme Court ... that may have been implicit in the beginning but nonetheless became explicit and specific under extreme pressure of the exigent need for a string of specific unimaginable favorable and improper officialacts. An express about face from the established proper course of a case for the unique and exclusive benefit of large cash donors upon illegal campaign cash influence and ex parte prodding (See statement attributed to Attorney David J. Betras on pages 30–32) formed an agreement to accept past, present and future cash payments as a $150,000 + bribe and payoff for the set of unique, special, specific AND improper official acts needed to prevail in a major civil suit [the Huff personal injury action].⁷

(Compl. ¶ 13).

Plaintiffs surmise, without...