Court Opinion

ID: 9917401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-12 14:05:47.534212+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:02:36.810462
License: Public Domain

[Cite as UH OH Ohio, L.L.C. v. Buchanan, 2024-Ohio-11.]

                         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                     FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
                          HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

 UH OH OHIO, LLC,                                   :     APPEAL NO.     C-230118
                                                          TRIAL NO.      A-2203396
      Plaintiff-Appellee,                           :

   vs.                                              :       O P I N I O N.

 MICHAEL BUCHANAN,                                  :

      Defendant-Appellant.                          :

Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: January 5, 2024

Blessing & Wallace Law, LLC, and Angela L. Wallace, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Michael Buchanan, pro se.
                  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

CROUSE, Presiding Judge.

       {¶1}   Defendant-appellant Michael Buchanan appeals from the trial court’s

decision granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee Uh Oh Ohio, LLC,

(“Uh Oh”) in its action to have the trial court declare Buchanan to be a vexatious

litigator. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                       I. Factual and Procedural History

       {¶2}   Buchanan is a former employee of Uh Oh. Uh Oh is one of several

limited liability companies (“LLCs”) operated by Michael Klinger relating to the

ownership and management of rental properties in Hamilton County. Buchanan

worked for Uh Oh for a little more than a month from December 2021 to January 2022

when he abruptly quit. Buchanan categorizes his resignation as “constructive

discharge” because he quit as a result of intolerable work conditions, whereas Uh Oh

claims that Buchanan quit suddenly by text message after a phone call with Klinger in

which Klinger criticized Buchanan’s work performance. Buchanan categorizes certain,

highly animated statements he alleges that Klinger made over the phone as “assault.”

       {¶3}   Shortly after Buchanan’s employment with Uh Oh ended in January

2022, Buchanan filed a complaint in the Hamilton County Municipal Court, in the case

numbered 22CV-01342, alleging various causes of action against Uh Oh. Buchanan

primarily alleges assault, but his complaint also contains claims pertaining to

hazardous working conditions, unfair pay, and constructive discharge. The complaint

names as defendants Uh Oh, several other LLCs operated by Klinger, and LCNB

National Bank. LCNB National Bank was dismissed voluntarily as a defendant after it

filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim against it. At present, Buchanan’s

assault case has been stayed by the municipal court awaiting the outcome of the

                                            2
                   OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

instant case.

       {¶4}     In September 2022, Uh Oh filed its complaint in the Hamilton County

Court of Common Pleas seeking to have the court declare Buchanan to be a vexatious

litigator under R.C. 2323.52. Uh Oh alleged that Buchanan had filed 21 complaints in

the Hamilton and Butler County courts between 2008 and 2022, including the assault

case against Uh Oh. Of these cases, 18 were filed pro se. Uh Oh alleged that each of

these lawsuits was “instituted merely to harass or maliciously injure the defendant,

was not warranted under existing law or a reasonable extension thereof, or was

imposed solely for delay.” With the exception of the pending assault case between

Buchanan and Uh Oh, each case was dismissed. Although every case was dismissed,

rather than reaching a result on the merits, Buchanan points out that some cases were

dismissed following a settlement in which Buchanan was paid by the defendant. Uh

Oh categorizes these as “nuisance settlement” payments, made solely to terminate

litigation expeditiously, rather than on the basis of potential merit.

       {¶5}     Buchanan filed an answer, denying the entire complaint generally, and

counterclaimed for damages against Uh Oh and its attorney for defamation and false

light regarding the allegations made by Uh Oh in its complaint. The court dismissed

the counterclaims on the basis that statements made in a judicial proceeding that are

reasonably related to the proceeding are absolutely privileged against a claim of

defamation or false light, citing Hecht v. Levin, 66 Ohio St.3d 458, 460, 613 N.E.2d

585 (1993), and Dudee v. Philpot, 2019-Ohio-3939, 133 N.E.3d 590, ¶ 84 (1st Dist.).

       {¶6}     Buchanan and Uh Oh each filed motions for summary judgment. In

support of its motion, Uh Oh relied on its summary of the public records of Buchanan’s

many court filings. Buchanan supported his motion with multiple exhibits showing

                                            3
                  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

that he had received some form of settlement in seven of his cases. Buchanan’s exhibits

also show that in three of his cases, he was represented by counsel. Buchanan’s

exhibits also show records from two cases not appearing in Uh Oh’s list, in which

Buchanan won default judgments. Those two cases, however, are duplicative of other

cases Buchanan filed later against the same defendants and which do appear on Uh

Oh’s list.

        {¶7}   Between October 2022 and March 2023, Buchanan and Uh Oh engaged

in extensive motions practice. Buchanan filed multiple motions regarding discovery

disputes, requests to have records in this case sealed against public disclosure, and

motions to have Uh Oh’s attorney sanctioned and held in contempt. While the trial

court did permit the sealing of one of Buchanan’s exhibits, the remainder of

Buchanan’s motions were denied. Buchanan also filed a subpoena duces tecum

demanding that the Ohio Bureau of Worker’s Compensation appear and produce a

litany of records pertaining to attempts to access his records, including login attempts

by Uh Oh’s attorney.

        {¶8}   In March 2023, the court granted Uh Oh’s motion for summary

judgment, denied Buchanan’s motion for summary judgment, and declared Buchanan

to be a vexatious litigator. The court based its decision on: counterclaims filed in this

action that are “wholly unsupported by Ohio law”; repeated attempts to file amended

counterclaims without leave of the court, seeking first $170,000 and later $10 million

in damages; and the “litany of other motions” filed “with little or hard to follow

context.” The trial court also reviewed Buchanan’s history of filing other cases, noting

that while some were settled or otherwise worked out, “the record clearly establishes

the courts have been weaponized by Mr. Buchanan to solve every perceived dispute or

                                           4
                  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

slight he encounters, perhaps in the hopes of obtaining a quick settlement. When that

did not happen, it was often incumbent upon the courts to dismiss his cases.”

       {¶9}    Following the court’s order on summary judgment, Buchanan filed a

notice of appeal and a motion to stay the execution of the court’s judgment. The trial

court denied Buchanan’s motion to stay execution. This court dismissed Buchanan’s

appeal for failure to request leave of the court to file his appeal in the appeal numbered

C-230096. Buchanan subsequently requested leave to file an appeal, which was

granted, and a fresh notice of appeal.

       {¶10} Buchanan also filed a motion requesting that the trial judge, Judge

Robert Goering, voluntarily recuse himself from the case. Buchanan also filed an

affidavit of disqualification against Judge Goering in the Ohio Supreme Court. The

Supreme Court dismissed Buchanan’s affidavit because nothing was then pending

before Judge Goering in the court of common pleas. Buchanan then filed a “Motion

for Redaction and Preservation of Confidentiality” in the trial court. The trial court

dismissed the motion as moot on the basis that (1) Buchanan had not sought leave of

the court to file it, (2) the case was then pending on appeal, and (3) the court had

already ruled on a similar motion. In the interim, Buchanan filed a new affidavit of

disqualification with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied Buchanan’s

affidavit on the merits, holding that Buchanan had not shown a disqualifying

relationship or bias against Buchanan.

                                     II. Analysis

       {¶11} In his sole assignment of error, Buchanan argues that the trial court

erred in granting summary judgment to Uh Oh.

       {¶12} Although the trial court’s determination in a vexatious-litigator case is

                                            5
                  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

ordinarily reviewed for an abuse of discretion, we apply the summary-judgment

standard when the trial court made its decision on a motion for summary judgment.

Stephens v. Downtown Property Mgt., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-220332,

2023-Ohio-1988, ¶ 11. An appellate court reviews the trial court’s decision on

summary judgment de novo. Id. at ¶ 12. Summary judgment is appropriate where “(1)

no genuine issue of material fact remains, (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 construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the

nonmoving party, that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for

summary judgment is made.” Id., quoting Al Neyer, LLC v. Westfield Ins. Co.,

2020-Ohio-5417, 163 N.E.3d 106, ¶ 14 (1st Dist.); Civ.R. 56(C).

       {¶13} The vexatious-litigator statute provides for a court of common pleas to

declare that a person is a vexatious litigator. A vexatious litigator is:

       any person who has habitually, persistently, and without reasonable

       grounds engaged in vexatious conduct in a civil action or actions,

       whether in the court of claims or in a court of appeals, court of common

       pleas, municipal court, or county court, whether the person or another

       person instituted the civil action or actions, and whether the vexatious

       conduct was against the same party or against different parties in the

       civil action or actions.

R.C. 2323.52(A)(3).

       {¶14} Vexatious conduct is defined as:

       conduct of a party in a civil action that satisfies any of the following:

       (a) The conduct obviously serves merely to harass or maliciously injure

                                             6
                  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       another party to the civil action.

       (b) The conduct is not warranted under existing law and cannot be

       supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or

       reversal of existing law.

       (c) The conduct is imposed solely for delay.

R.C. 2323.52(A)(2).

       {¶15} As we have explained previously, “[i]t is the nature of the conduct, not

the number of actions, which determines whether a person is a ‘vexatious litigator.’ ”

Stephens, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-220332, 2023-Ohio-1988, at ¶ 19. The number of

actions, however, may be relevant to the determination of whether a person

“habitually and persistently engages in vexatious conduct.” Id. Such vexatious conduct

includes “filing unnecessary, inappropriate or supernumerary pleadings and motions

which raise or re-raise arguments that have been repeatedly rejected by the courts.”

Id., quoting Howdyshell v. Battle, 5th Dist. Morgan No. 19AP0001, 2019-Ohio-5232,

¶ 18. Vexatious conduct also includes the “consistent repetition of arguments and legal

theories that have been rejected by the court numerous times.” Id., quoting Prime

Equip. Group, Inc. v. Schmidt, 2016-Ohio-3472, 66 N.E.3d 305, ¶ 40 (10th Dist.).

       {¶16} On summary judgment, Buchanan did not dispute that he filed the

actions listed by Uh Oh. Rather, Buchanan provided additional evidence showing that

Uh Oh was likely correct in its categorization of his settlements as “nuisance

settlements.” In one case, Buchanan demanded an amount in excess of $50,000 and

settled the case for $500. In another case, Buchanan demanded $200,000 and settled

the case for $1,000. In another series of cases, Buchanan sued the same defendant in

three successive cases, first for $886, then for $3,000, and finally for $10 million,

                                            7
                  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

despite having won a default judgment and successfully executing the judgment in the

first case before either of the subsequent cases were filed. Many other cases were

dismissed for lack of prosecution.

       {¶17} Buchanan’s conduct in this case also confirms that he has engaged in a

pattern of vexatious conduct. Buchanan’s counterclaims for defamation and false-light

invasion of privacy, based solely on the allegations contained in the complaint, are

clearly unwarranted under existing Ohio law, and Buchanan has presented no good-

faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. See Surace

v. Wuliger, 25 Ohio St.3d 229, 495 N.E.2d 939 (1986), syllabus (“under the doctrine

of absolute privilege in a judicial proceeding, a claim alleging that a defamatory

statement was made in a written pleading does not state a cause of action where the

allegedly defamatory statement bears some reasonable relation to the judicial

proceeding in which it appears”); Dudee, 2019-Ohio-3939, 133 N.E.3d 590, at ¶ 84,

quoting Welling v. Weinfeld, 113 Ohio St.3d 464, 2007-Ohio-2451, 866 N.E.2d 1051,

¶ 58 (“False light defendants enjoy protections at least as extensive as defamation

defendants.”). Even after the trial court dismissed Buchanan’s counterclaims,

Buchanan repeatedly attempted to file amended counterclaims without leave of the

court. Additionally, Buchanan repeatedly filed motions requesting the same or

identical relief, even after the trial court had ruled on a similar motion.

       {¶18} We conclude that the trial court correctly found that Buchanan had

habitually, persistently, and without reasonable grounds engaged in vexatious

conduct. Accordingly, Buchanan’s sole assignment of error is overruled.

                                     III. Conclusion

       {¶19} We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                            8
                 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

                                                                   Judgment affirmed.

BERGERON and WINKLER, JJ., concur.

Please note:

       The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.

                                           9