[Cite as Leiby v. Univ. of Akron, 2011-Ohio-5329.]

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us

TODD LEIBY 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

THE UNIVERSITY OF AKRON 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-08586 

Judge Joseph T. Clark 

ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

{¶1} On July 13, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to 

Civ.R. 56(A). On July 14, 2011, defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment 

pursuant to Civ.R. 56(B) or, in the alternative, motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 

12(B)(1) and (6); however, inasmuch as the pleadings are closed, the court construes 

defendant’s motion to dismiss as a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to 

Civ.R. 12(C).1 Defendant filed a response to plaintiff’s motion on July 26, 2011, and 

plaintiff filed a response to defendant’s motion on July 27, 2011. The motions are now 

before the court for a non-oral hearing. 

{¶2} Civ.R. 12(C) states: “After the pleadings are closed but within such times as 

not to delay the trial, any party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” A motion for 

judgment on the pleadings presents only questions of law and it may be granted only 

where no material factual issues exist and when the moving party is entitled to judgment 

as a matter of law. Peterson v. Teodosio (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d 161, 165-166. 
Case No. 2010-08586 - 2 - ENTRY

“Pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C), the pleadings must be construed liberally and in a light most 

favorable to the party against whom the motion is made along with the reasonable 

inferences drawn therefrom.” Burnside, supra. 

{¶3} Plaintiff, an alumnus of defendant, alleges that on June 1, 2008, he filed a 

report with defendant’s Office of Student Judicial Affairs wherein he alleged that he 

observed a student engage in “academic dishonesty” during the fall semester of 1999. 

The crux of plaintiff’s complaint is that defendant failed to properly investigate and act 

upon his report, that defendant engaged in “a massive cover-up to ignore the serious 

academic dishonesty problems,” and that such actions “diminished the value” of the 

degrees that defendant conferred upon him. Plaintiff asserts claims for defamation and 

violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA). 

{¶4} For his claim of defamation, plaintiff alleges that defendant has falsely 

represented “that his G.P.A. accurately reflects his skills, knowledge, and abilities, 

against those of his peers, who have not earned or deserve[d] the so-called privileges of 

the degrees and G.P.A.’s that they possess, due to the academic dishonesty that they 

committed * * *.” (Complaint, ¶28.) 

{¶5} “To prevail on a defamation claim, whether libel or slander, a plaintiff must 

prove the following elements: (1) a false statement, (2) about the plaintiff, (3) was 

published without privilege to a third party, (4) with fault of at least negligence on the 

part of the defendant, and (5) the statement was either defamatory per se or caused 

special harm to the plaintiff.” Schmidt v. Northcoast Behavioral Healthcare, Franklin 

App. No. 10AP-565, 2011-Ohio-777, ¶8. 

{¶6} Plaintiff’s complaint does not identify a specific statement attributable to 

defendant, nor does he allege that any such statement was published to a third party. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim for relief sounding in defamation. 

 1

See Burnside v. Leimbach (1991), 71 Ohio App.3d 399, 402 (“Civ.R. 12(C) may be employed by a 

defendant as a vehicle for raising the several defenses contained in Civ.R. 12(B) after the close of the 

pleadings.”). 
Case No. 2010-08586 - 3 - ENTRY

{¶7} With respect to plaintiff’s claim under the CSPA, R.C. 1345.04, a portion of 

the CSPA, states: “The courts of common pleas, and municipal or county courts within 

their respective monetary jurisdiction, have jurisdiction over any supplier with respect to 

any act or practice in this state covered by sections 1345.01 to 1345.13 of the Revised 

Code, or with respect to any claim arising from a consumer transaction subject to such 

sections.” 

{¶8} R.C. 2743.02(A)(1) provides in part: “The state hereby waives its immunity 

from liability * * * and consents to be sued, and have its liability determined, in the court 

of claims created in this chapter in accordance with the same rules of law applicable to 

suits between private parties * * *. To the extent that the state has previously consented 

to be sued, this chapter has no applicability.” The CSPA was enacted prior to the 

enactment of the Court of Claims Act and it applies to consumer actions against a 

“government, governmental subdivision or agency.” See R.C. 1345.01(B); Ridenour v. 

Chillicothe Corr. Inst., Ct. of Cl. No. 2007-09178-AD, 2009-Ohio-3576, ¶5. 

{¶9} Inasmuch as CSPA claims must be brought in “[t]he courts of common 

pleas, and municipal or county court” this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear 

such claims. Based upon the foregoing, defendant’s motion for judgment on the 

pleadings is GRANTED, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED, and 

plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. The 

clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the 

journal. 

 _____________________________________ 

 JOSEPH T. CLARK 

 Judge 

cc: 

 
Case No. 2010-08586 - 4 - ENTRY

Jennifer A. Adair 

Assistant Attorney General 

150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor 

Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 

Todd Leiby 

2300 North Haven Blvd. 

Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio 44223 

RCV/dms

Filed September 6, 2011 

To S.C. reporter October 13, 2011