Teodecki v. Litchfield Twp.

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: SCHAFER, Judge.
• Citation: Teodecki v. Litchfield Twp., 38 N.E.3d 355 (Ohio App. 2015)
• Decision Date: 15 June 2015
• Docket Number: No. 14CA0035–M.,14CA0035–M.
• Parties: Joyce TEODECKI, Appellant v. LITCHFIELD TOWNSHIP, et al., Appellees.

38 N.E.3d 355

Joyce TEODECKI, Appellant

v.LITCHFIELD TOWNSHIP, et al., Appellees.

No. 14CA0035–M.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Medina County.

June 15, 2015.

Theodore J. Lesiak, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

Timothy T. Reid and Jaclyn C. Staple, Attorneys at Law, for Appellees.

Opinion

SCHAFER, Judge.

{¶ 1} Plaintiff–Appellant, Joyce Teodecki, appeals from the judgments and final order of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas respectively granting summary judgment, a protective order, and a motion to quash in favor of the Defendants–Appellees, Litchfield Township, Nancy Wargo, Michael Pope, and Dennis Horvath. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

I.

{¶ 2} In January 2011, the Litchfield Township Trustees, Nancy Wargo, Michael Pope, and Dennis Horvath (“Trustees”), appointed Sergeant Joseph McDermott pursuant to R.C. 505.38 to investigate the activities of Joyce Teodecki in her capacity as fire chief of the Litchfield Fire Department. The investigation stemmed from the Trustees learning that the Litchfield Township Fire Department had compliance issues with Ohio law.

{¶ 3} On July 25, 2011, Sergeant McDermott issued a report (“Report”) containing the findings of his investigation. The Report implicated Mrs. Teodecki in the fire department's noncompliance with Ohio law. Sergeant McDermott sent a copy of the Report to the Medina County Prosecutor's Office through Assistant Prosecutor Carol Shockley. Sergeant McDermott also claims to have sent a copy to Mrs. Teodecki in July of 2011, although Mrs. Teodecki claims that she never received the Report at that time. At a Trustees meeting held on July 25, 2011, Mrs. Teodecki and the Trustees agreed that Mrs. Teodecki would resign from her position as fire chief in exchange for the township not pursuing charges against her. They also agreed that Mrs. Teodecki would stay on as a consultant for the fire department through the end of the year. The Trustees memorialized this agreement in Litchfield Resolution No. 22–11. This resolution also accepted Mrs. Teodecki's resignation. At the bottom of Litchfield Resolution No. 22–11, the assistant prosecutor added a handwritten note, stating: “The results of the investigation shall be kept confidential between the Medina County Prosecutor's Office and the Investigator.” It is disputed whether this added confidentiality clause was part of the agreement struck at the Trustees meeting between the Trustees and Mrs. Teodecki.

{¶ 4} In October 2011, Mrs. Teodecki penned an open letter to the citizens of Litchfield in a local newspaper wherein she criticized the three Litchfield Township Trustees by name and accused them of employing “bully tactics” in order to further their own agendas. The letter referenced the township's investigation of her and the fire department. The Trustees then held a special meeting in November of 2011, where they unanimously voted to remove the handwritten confidentiality clause from Litchfield Resolution 22–11 and to release the Report to the public. Trustee Wargo read a statement at the meeting, stating that Mrs. Teodecki knew that the charges against her involved misfeasance, malfeasance, nonfeasance and misconduct in office, the creation of a hostile work environment, and gross neglect of duty.

{¶ 5} On January 18, 2012, Trustee Pope filed a Complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission alleging that Mrs. Teodecki's open letter in the local newspaper made false statements about the Trustees in violation of Ohio law. The Commission found probable cause for one of Trustee Pope's claims, but found that his other three claims lacked probable cause. The Commission scheduled a hearing for May 24, 2012. Trustee Pope withdrew his Complaint via email prior to that hearing, but failed to notify Mrs. Teodecki or her attorney that he had done so. Thus, on May 24, 2012, Mrs. Teodecki and her lawyer unnecessarily travelled to Columbus, Ohio in order to attend the hearing. Mrs. Teodecki claims that responding to Trustee Pope's Complaint before the Ohio Elections Commission and traveling to the hearing in Columbus cost her in excess of $6,000.00 in attorney fees.

{¶ 6} On July 26, 2012, Mrs. Teodecki filed a Complaint in the Medina County Court of Common Pleas against Litchfield Township and the township's three Trustees, Nancy Wargo, Dennis Horvath, and Michael Pope (collectively, “Defendants–Appellees”). Mrs. Teodecki's Complaint alleged breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. All of these claims relate to the circumstances under which Mrs. Teodecki left her position as fire chief of the Litchfield Township Fire Department and the aftermath of her resignation.

{¶ 7} On June 6, 2013, during the discovery process, Mrs. Teodecki and her attorney served a subpoena demanding that the Medina County Prosecutor “produce any and all documents and/or other written or recorded material in possession of the Medina County Prosecutors [sic] Office regarding [Mrs. Teodecki] and/or the Litchfield Township Fire Department from January 1, 2008 to the present.” The subpoena also demanded that the Medina County Prosecutor “produce any documents and/or other written or recorded materials in possession of the Medina County Prosecutors [sic] Office regarding the special investigation of [Mrs. Teodecki] and/or the Litchfield Township Fire Department undertaken by Special Investigator Joseph McDermott in 2010–11,” along with “any written and/or recorded communications between the Medina County Prosecutor's Office and Litchfield Township, Ohio and/or the Litchfield Township Trustees regarding [Mrs. Teodecki] and/or the Litchfield Township Fire Department from January 1, 2008 to the present.” Mrs. Teodecki and her attorney also served subpoenas upon Medina County Prosecutor Dean Holman and former Assistant Prosecutor Carol Shockley to take their depositions.

{¶ 8} In June of 2013, Defendants–Appellees filed a motion to quash the subpoenas and a motion for a protective order asserting that the materials and testimony sought through the subpoenas constituted privileged attorney-client communications. The trial court held a hearing on the motions and granted the Defendants–Appellees' motions via entry on July 19, 2013.

{¶ 9} On September 17, 2013, Defendants–Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment as to all claims contained in Mrs. Teodecki's Complaint. Mrs. Teodecki filed a brief in opposition. On November 26, 2013 and November 27, 2013, the trial court granted the Defendants–Appellees' motion for summary judgment in four separate entries on Mrs. Teodecki's claims for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, defamation, and breach of contract with respect to the individual Trustees. The trial court, however, denied Defendants–Appellees' motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim with respect to Litchfield Township, but expressly reserved consideration of additional reasons for summary judgment which were not fully addressed in Defendants–Appellees' motion.

{¶ 10} On January 8, 2014, Defendants–Appellees filed a supplemental motion for summary judgment regarding Mrs. Teodecki's breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. Mrs. Teodecki again filed a brief in opposition. The trial court judge then recused himself from the case on February 10, 2014.

{¶ 11} On March 21, 2014, Mrs. Teodecki filed a motion asking the newly assigned trial judge to reconsider the previous judge's orders granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants–Appellee on all claims except for intentional infliction of emotional distress and the breach of contract with respect to Litchfield Township. On April 2, 2014, Mrs. Teodecki also filed a motion asking the newly assigned judge to reconsider the previous trial judge's order quashing the subpoenas for the Medina County Prosecutor and his assistant. The trial court reconsidered the previous judges' rulings on both motions, but ultimately adopted the previous judge's decisions.

{¶ 12} On April 22, 2014, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants–Appellees on Mrs. Teodecki's claims for breach of contract with respect to Litchfield Township and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court then entered final judgment for Defendants–Appellees and dismissed Mrs. Teodecki's lawsuit with prejudice.

{¶ 13} Mrs. Teodecki now appeals from the trial court's judgments rendered on July 19, 2013, November 26, 2013, November 27, 2013, and the Final Order of April 22, 2014, raising two assignments of error for this Court's review.

II.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS–APPELLEES.

{¶ 14} In her first assignment of error, Mrs. Teodecki argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants–Appellees as to her breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and abuse of process claims. We disagree with respect to all four claims.

{¶ 15} This Court reviews an award of summary judgment de novo. Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105, 671 N.E.2d 241 (1996). This Court views the facts in the case in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and must resolve any doubt in favor of the non-moving party. Viock v. Stowe—Woodward Co., 13 Ohio App.3d 7, 12, 467 N.E.2d 1378 (6th Dist.1983).

{¶ 16} Pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C), summary judgment is proper if:

(1) No genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be litigated; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and viewing such evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that conclusion is adverse to that party.

Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317, 327, 364 N.E.2d 267 (1977).

{¶ 17} Summary judgment consists of a...