[Cite as Weiler v. Google, L.L.C. , 2023

- Ohio

- 3357.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA SHAWN WEILER, :

Plaintiff

- Appellant , : No. 112038

v. : GOOGLE LLC., ET AL., :

Defendants

- Appell ees
. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: September 21, 2023

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

Case No. C

V

- 22
- 963458

Appearances: Shawn Weiler, pro se
. Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP and James A. Wilson , and Karey E. Werner , for app ellee Google LLC.

V ASVARI│ZIMMERMAN, Raymond V. Vasvari, Jr., and K. Ann Zimmerman , for appellee Think Computer Corporati on.
F ARUKI PLL, Erin E. Rhinehart and Raika N. Casey , for appellees Portfolio Media, Inc., Justia, UniCourt, Inc., Free Law Project, and Casetext , Inc. Graydon Head & Ritchey LLP, and John C. Greiner, for appell ee PacerMonitor LLC

.EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J.:
Plaintiff

- appell ant, Shawn Weiler (“ Weiler”) , appeals the trial court’s judgment granting summary judgment in favor of d efendant s - a ppellees , Google
LLC , (“Google”) ; Portfolio Media, Inc., Justia, Unicourt Inc., Free Law P roject, and Casetext, Inc. , collectively ( “ Portfolio”) ; Think Computer (“Think”) ; and
PacerMonitor LLC

. (“Pace r ”) , collectively, ( “ Appe llees”), on his claim for libel. For the reason set forth below, we affirm

. Procedural History and Factual Background

On October 23, 2017, Weiler sued the Internal Revenue Service in the
United States District Court for the N orthern District of Ohio in a dispute over his
federal income tax

. The records pertaining to the lawsuit were publicly available on

Pace r, the federal court’s electronic filing system. Weiler subsequently appealed the
decision from his federal suit on August 1, 2019

. During the four years that followed, Weiler had difficulty finding employment. He eventuall y learned from a job
recruite r that a potential employer refused to hire him because an internet search of
his name reveal ed the lawsuit and appeal against the government.

Weiler conducted his own internet search of his name , utilizing the Google search engine

. The search r eturned the results of his federal lawsuit on
several websites. Weiler attempted to remove any reference to the lawsuit from
online public access

. On May 13, 2022, Weiler filed a complaint in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas along with a motion for a temporary restrainingorder a gainst A ppellees , alleging libel for their roles in indexing, linking , or otherwise making the records of his federal lawsuit availa ble online to the public

.

The trial court denied Weiler’s motion fo r a temporary restraining
order on May 18, 2022, and motion for reconsideration on July 7, 2022 , because
Weiler failed to allege an essential element of his libel claim ; therefore, he was unlikely to prevail on the merits of his claim

. Weiler filed an amended complaint on

June 2 4 , 2022
.

In pertinent part , Weiler alleged that Google recklessly indexe s websites with no regard for the consequences of its search results

. Weiler claims
that Pacer allows Google to return search results from its website wit hout his permission , allowing access to his personal, sensitive information. As a result,
Weiler’s reputation has been damaged and he has been unable to obtain suitable employment. As a proximate result, Weiler has suffered economic loss. Weiler alleged six additional counts for libel, accusing Google in each count of recklessly indexing websites and making the same allegations outlined in C ount 1 , against each of the remaining A

ppellees individually in C ounts 2

- 6. On June 29, 2022 , and September 19, 2022, Appellees filed m otion s

to d ismiss Weiler’s a mended complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12 (B)(6), based on his claim being time

- barred and Weiler’s failure to allege that any of the A ppellees made
a false statement. The trial court granted A ppellees ’ motions on July 14, 2022 , and October 11, 2022, respectively. The trial court’s journal entries state that p laintiff'sclaims are time

- barred and he failed to allege falsity, a required element of a libel

claim

. Weiler now appeals and raises si x assignments of error for our review: Assignment of Error No. 1 The trial court erred in denying Plaintiff

- Appellant’s motion for a temporary restraining order.

Assignment of Error No. 2 The trial court erred in denying Plaintiff

- Appellant’s motion for reconsideration. Assignment of Error No. 3 The trial court erred in granting Defendant

- Appellee Google’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.

Assignment of Error No. 4 The trial court erred in granting Defendant s - Appellee s Portfolio Media, Inc., Justia, Unicourt Inc., Free Law Project, and Casetext, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.

Assignment of Error No. 5 The trial court erred in granting Defendant

- Appellee Think Computer’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.

Assignment of Error No. 6
The trial court erred in granting Defendant

- Appellee Pacer Monitor LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. Law and Analysis

Weiler argues the trial court erred when it granted the Appellees ’
motion s to dismiss his claims as time

- barred and for fail ure t o state a claim uponwhich relief can be granted

. Additionally , Weiler asserts the trial court s hould have

granted his motion s for a temporary restraining order and reconsideration

.

For ease of analysis, we will address the assignments of error in
combination and out of order as necessary. We will begin with the third through sixth assignments of error.
Motion to Dismiss
Standard of Review

A motion to dismiss , pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) , is reviewed under
the de novo standard

. NorthPoint Props. v. Petticord , 179 Ohio App.3d 342, 2008

- Ohio

- 5996, 901 N.E.2d 869, ¶ 11 (8th Dist.). We must consider whether g enuine
issues exist for trial. Id. “‘ A Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss is procedural and tests the sufficiency of the complaint

. ’ ” Butorac v. Osmic , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.

111777, 2023
- Ohio

- 1812, ¶ 29 , quot ing NorthPoint Props . at ¶ 11

. The reviewing

court must accept all the factual findings of the complaint , and all reasonable inferences must be considered in favor of the nonmoving party. Id. , citing NorthPoint Props., citing Byrd v. Faber , 57 Ohio St.3d 56, 565 N.E.2d 584 (1991). The moving party is entitled to a dismissal for failure to state a claim upon whic h
relief can be granted if it is clear from the four corners of the complaint that the plaintiff is unable to prove any set of facts entitling him to relief. Butorac at ¶ 30.Law and Analysis Weiler argues the trial court erred when it granted Appellee s ’ motion s to dismiss his libel claim for failing to allege falsity, an essential element of a libel
claim , and being time

- barred

. We will first address the falsity element

.

In order to survive a motion to dismiss a defamation claim , a private person who makes a claim for libel must allege : “ (1) a false statement of fact was made about the plaintiff, (2) the statement was defamatory , (3) the statement was published, (4) the p laintiff suffered injury as a proximate result of the publication , and (5) the defendant acted with the requisite degree of fault in publishing the

statement

. ” Hartman v. Kerch , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111928, 2023

- Ohio

- 1972, ¶ 34
. “ Defamation includes both libel and slander. Libel refers to written or printed defamatory words, while slander refers to spoken defamatory words .” (Citation
omitted .) Dudee v. Philpot , 2019
- Ohio

- 3939, 133 N.E.3d 590, ¶ 9 (1st Dist.)

.

Here, the subject o f Weiler’s libel claim are the court documents regarding his lawsuit against the I nternal R evenue S ervice

. Notably, case documents are generally open to the public

. State ex rel. Cin cinnati Enquirer v. Shanahan , 166 Ohio St.3d 382, 2022

- Ohio

- 448, 185 N.E.3d 1089, ¶ 1. Weiler claims public access to this information has affected his employment prospects. Due to the widespread public access t o his lawsuit informatio n , Weiler ar gues that falsity is not required t o prove his libel claim. We disagree. “‘ Truth is an absolute defense against
a claim of defamation.” ’ Woods v. Sharkin , 2022
- Ohio

- 1949, 192 N.E.3d 1174, ¶ 55 (8th Dist.) , quot ing Shifflet v. Thomson Newspapers (Ohio), Inc., 69 Ohio St.2d 179,183, 431 N .E.2d 1014 (1982). It is well settled that to prevail , a private person

making a defamation claim must prove a false and defamatory statement was made
about the claimant. Horn

- Dahly v. Pool , Summit C.P. No. CV

- 2013
- 010232, 2013 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 22016 (May 8, 2013). Since falsity is an essential element of

a defamation claim , a true statement cannot provide the basis for such an action

. Hartman v. Kerch , 2023
- Ohio

- 1972, ¶ 37. Also, facilitating public access to We iler’s
information that may be unfavorable, although truthful, is not defamation. Given
Weiler’s failure to allege any false statement made by A ppellees, his claim of
defamation fails

.

The trial court did not err when it granted A ppelle e s ’ Civ.R. 12(B)(6 ) motions to dismiss because Weiler’s complaint failed to state a claim upo n which relief could be granted

.

Moreover, t he complaint alleges that Google recklessly indexed
content from th e other A ppellees ’ websites without regard to the consequences of
the search results. This additional allegation against Google is slightly different than
the other a llegation s
. Google ’ s search engine permits users to input queries and retrieve information, web pages, images, videos, and other content from its
extensive database of indexed websites. Google was named in each count of the complaint ; however, Weiler does not allege that Go ogle made any statements about
him

. Rather , he complain ed that Google provided unfavorable search results to potential employers

. Having failed to allege that Google made a false statementabout him, Weiler has not demonstrated that he has a claim for li bel against Google.

Accordingly, Google is entitled to dismissal pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6).

Finally , Weiler argues that the trial court erred when it found his
claims were time

- barred , providing another basis for dismissal

. Weiler fails to offer a lega l basis for his argument that his libel claim s are not time

- barred. Consistent with App.R. 12(A)(2), a reviewing court ‘ “ may disregard an assignment of error if an appellant fails to cite any legal authority in support of an argument as required by App.R. 16(A)(7). ’” Barry v. White, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111943, 2023

- Ohio

- 1570, ¶ 11 , quoting Ohio Div. of Sec s. v Treece, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L

- 21
- 1191 , 2022
- Ohio

3267, ¶ 13
. Accordingly, we will not consider whether Weiler’s claims are time

barred on appeal. Restraining Order
Standard of Review

Turning to the first assignment of error, Weiler alleges the trial court
erred when it denied his motion for a restraining order. A temporary restraining
order is an extraordinary remedy that rests within th e sound discretion of the trial

court

. Perkins v. Quaker City , 165 Ohio St. 120, 133 N.E.2d 595 (1956)

. The
standard of review for a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a temporary restraining order is abuse of discretion. Brookville Equip. Corp. v. Cincinnati , 1st
Dist. Hamilton No. C

- 120434, 2012
- Ohio

- 3648, ¶ 10. An abuse of discretion is
conduct tha t is “ “unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” ” State v. Hill , Slip Opinion No. 2022

- Ohio

- 4544, ¶ 9 , quoting State v. Beasley 152 Ohio St.3d 470,2018

- Ohio

- 16, 97 N.E.3d 474, quoting Blakemore v. Blakemore , 5 Ohio St.3d 217,

219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983)

. Law and Analysis

Before a trial court issues a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) ,
t he plaintiff must demonstrate he will suffer irreparable harm without the TRO ; the harm outweighs the injury to the defendant and others ; the public interest would be served by issuing the TRO and th at he is likely to prevail on the merits in the underlying action. Mike Lapine, Inc. v. Cleveland Business Show, Inc

. , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 50028, 1986 Ohio App. LEXIS 6131, 7 (Mar. 27, 1986)

.

Since Weil er failed to allege falsity , he cannot prevail on his underlying claims. Therefore, t he trial court did not err when it denied Weiler’s
motion for a temporary restraining order.
Conclusion

Due to Weiler’s failure to allege falsity, an essential element t o a libel claim, the trial court did not err in granting A ppellees ’ motions to dismiss. Additionally, Weiler’s failure to provide a legal basis against the trial court’s decision that the complaint was time

- barred, results in this issue being disregarded

. Finally ,

c onsidering our resolution of Weiler’s first assignment of error , his second assignment of error is moot and we need not consider whether the trial court erred in denying Weiler’s motion for reconsideration

. App.R. 12(A)(1)(c).

Accordingly, Weiler’s assignments of error are overruled. Judgment affirmed.It is ordered that appellee s recover from appellant costs herein taxed.

The cou rt finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the commons pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

EMANUELLA D. GROVES, JUDGE
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN , P. J., and SEAN C. GALLAGHER , J., CONCUR