First District roundup

Last week the First District issued two decisions worth mentioning--one civil and one criminal.

Service of process abroad

In December I wrote about the First District's decision in Richardson v. Clinical Computing PLC, in which the court held that a treaty (the "Hague Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters") permitted service of a complaint and summons by regular mail in the United Kingdom. I also noted that there was a split of authority on the question.

Today the US Supreme Court resolved that split, holding in Water Splash v. Menon that the treaty does indeed permit service of process through regular mail.

A tip of the cap is due to former First District Judge Peter Stautberg, who nailed the analysis in his decision.

Stay granted in Vontz v. Miller

Vontz v. Miller is an interesting First District decision that I noted in late December but did not have an opportunity to discuss. The named parties are each 50% shareholders of Dayton Heidelberg Distributing Co., and their litigation concerned a shareholder impasse. The trial court issued injunctive relief requiring the shareholders to attend a shareholder meeting, but the First District reversed in part, holding that the trial court exceeded its authority.

Brief filed: R&R Family Investments v. The Plastic Moldings Corp.

Today we filed a notice of appeal and a jurisdictional brief in the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of the appellant in R&R Family Investments v. The Plastic Moldings Corp., et al. You can read the brief here.

At issue in the case is whether a property owner owes a duty to people outside the land with regard to naturally occurring conditions of which the owner has actual knowledge. More particularly, our brief asks the Court to accept the appeal in order to adopt Section 54 of the Restatement Third of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm.

Hague Service Convention authorizes service by mail

The First District has weighed in on a district split regarding whether the Hague Service Convention permits service of a complaint and summons by regular mail, and finds that it does.

Brief filed: Fisher v. Doe

In October I criticized the First District's decision in Fisher v. Doe because it declined to adopt and apply the Dendrite test, which provides rules for when an anonymous speaker can be unmasked. Doe has appealed the decision to the Ohio Supreme Court, and today Tom Haren and I filed an amicus brief in support of jurisdiction, on behalf of our client Alexandria Goddard. Alex was the blogger who earned fame (or, perhaps, notoriety) in 2012 for investigating and blogging the social media posts made by students attending a party at which two Steubenville High School football players raped a teenaged girl.

Our brief can be read here. In it Tom and I urge the Court to recognize that both the Ohio and US Constitutions protect the rights to speak anonymously and remain anonymous, and that the Dendrite test is best suited to protecting those constitutional rights, while still allowing for meritorious claims to proceed. Most importantly, Dendrite requires plaintiffs to make a showing of merit before unmasking the anonymous speaker. Any rule that allows unmasking before a demonstration of the existence of a meritorious claim improperly prioritizes a common law claim (defamation) over a constitutional right (anonymity).

The plaintiff's response to the jurisdictional briefs is due in January.

Update: the Court has declined jurisdiction in the case.

Supreme Court elections official

First District judges Pat Fischer and Pat DeWine have officially won the elections for the seats being vacated by Justices Paul Pfeiffer and Judith Ann Lanzinger, respectively. Fischer narrowly defeated Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge John O'Donnell--O'Donnell only conceded the race this past week--and will be sworn in on January 1. DeWine, who earned a sizeable victory over Judge Cynthia Rice of the Eleventh District, will be sworn in on January 2.

When is a hospital employee acting within the scope of employment?

If a hospital employee accesses a patient medical record for a reason having nothing to do with treatment of the patient and then unlawfully discloses that information, is the hospital liable for the employee's actions? No, says the First District.

Does Dendrite International apply in Ohio?

What standard must a court apply when a plaintiff seeks to use the subpoena power of the court to identify an anonymous speaker on the internet? There is not yet a consensus to this important question in Ohio, but earlier this week the First District--my home district, filled with good judges with whom I very rarely disagree--bucked the national trend by declining to apply the standard from Dendrite International v. Doe. In my opinion this case was wrongly decided, and does not adequately protect the constitutional right to anonymous speech. This is a subject in which I'm very interested; see here for video of my participation in a panel last week at the Ohio State Bar Association's Law and Media Conference.

Update: we have filed an amicus brief in support of Doe's jurisdictional appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.

No stay in criminal contempt case

In today's case announcements, the Court denied a motion to stay imposition of a five-day sentence for indirect criminal contempt. The contemnor, Crysta Pleatman, had raised due process and First Amendment defenses to the contempt charge, both of which were rejected by both the trial court and the First District.

Pitcher v. Waldman - no requirement to hold sanctions hearing

In Pitcher v. Waldman, the First District affirmed the trial court's decision denying sanctions. The defendant argued that the complaint was based on claims that the plaintiffs knew had previously been released pursuant to the settlement of earlier litigation, and that the sole purpose of the complaint was to harass Waldman.  The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the First District rejected the argument that a trial court must hold a hearing on a motion for sanctions; per R.C. 2323.51(B)(2) requires a hearing only if the court imposes sanctions.