Court Opinion

ID: 9894602
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-02 14:07:47.073061+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:04.452739
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Iannetta v. Amazon, Inc., 2023-Ohio-3980.]

                              COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                             EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

NICK IANNETTA,                                        :

                 Plaintiff-Appellant,                 :
                                                                No. 112553
                 v.                                   :

AMAZON INC.,                                          :

                 Defendant-Appellee.
                                                      :

                               JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
                 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: November 2, 2023

            Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                                Case No. CV-22-967669

                                            Appearances:

                 Nick Iannetta, pro se.

                 Steptoe & Johnson PLLC and Dallas F. Kratzer III, for
                 appellee.

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J.:

                   Plaintiff-appellant Nick Iannetta (“Iannetta”), pro se, appeals the trial

court’s order granting defendant-appellee Amazon Inc.’s (“Amazon”) motion to

dismiss. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Factual and Procedural History

               Iannetta’s lawsuit stems from his sale of paperback and eBooks

through Authorhouse, a third-party publishing company, who listed and sold the

books on Amazon. Iannetta disputes whether his Authorhouse account accurately

reflects the number of books sold on Amazon. Specifically, Iannetta argues that

Amazon’s website shows it has more books available for sale than the number of

books sold to Amazon through Authorhouse. Iannetta also argues that Amazon lists

him as an Amazon bestseller, which denotes sales of at least 3,000 books, but

Iannetta’s Authorhouse account reflects the sale of fewer books. The record does

not demonstrate whether Iannetta executed contracts with Authorhouse or Amazon.

               In or around May 2018, Iannetta initiated arbitration proceedings in

Ohio against Authorhouse. Pursuant to those proceedings, a subpoena was issued,

at Iannetta’s request, to Amazon in Washington state seeking (1) a record, printout,

or report stating the number of copies Amazon sold of Iannetta’s book titled “2015

Top Pro Football Prospects Scouting Reports” and (2) a statement, printout, or

report that reflected the number of new and used copies of the book that Amazon

had for sale. On June 22, 2018, Amazon filed objections to the subpoena and

Iannetta allegedly did not respond to those objections.1 Amazon did not provide the

information requested in the subpoena. Iannetta claims that without the requested

information from Amazon he was forced to “waive” the arbitration proceedings.

      1 The record does not include any documents from Iannetta’s 2018 action other than

a copy of Amazon’s objections to the subpoena.
              Approximately four years later, on August 19, 2022, Iannetta filed a

complaint in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-22-967669 against Amazon titled “pre-suit

complaint for discovery.” The complaint reads verbatim:

      Amazon denied the arbitration subpoena in Cleveland Municipal Court
      to obtain sales results for the paperback book and e-book from the first
      day the book went on sale on amazon, and I was not able to complete
      the arbitration with Authorhouse and the arbitration was waived. If
      Amazon intentionally did not notify Authorhouse of all the books sold
      on amazon or hid book sales from Authorhouse which would have
      prevented Authorhouse from paying me my royalties, I would expect to
      be paid compensatory damages, attorney fees, court costs, and punitive
      damages from amazon. Therefore, I was not able to receive money
      from amazon through Authorhouse for the books sold on Amazon. I
      am also entitled to any other monetary relief at law and in equity from
      Amazon.

      Objective: Is to obtain sales results from amazon for the paperback
      book and e-book from the first day the book went on sale on amazon.

      The number of used and new paperback books that were up for sale
      on amazon is more than the number of paperback books recorded sold
      in the author house account. Amazon indicated that I sold e-books,
      and this is significant because not one amazon electronic book is
      recorded sold in my Authorhouse account. Both the e-book version
      and paperback version are listed as amazon bestsellers on amazon.
      For the paperback and e-book versions, the minimum number of
      books sold by an author to qualify as an amazon bestseller is 3,000
      books. I expect the number of books sold on amazon to be higher than
      that since the paperback and e-book versions sales ranks are ranked
      much higher than that.

      At the time, the paperback sold for $35 and the e-book sold for $20. I
      never saw any amazon account statement. It sure seems like more
      books are sold on amazon than the number of books Authorhouse
      reported sold on amazon.

      I am requesting a one page transaction summary of all books sold on
      amazon from the first day the book went on sale on Amazon. I was
      not able to obtain the appropriate sales information from
      Authorhouse.
      What facts do you know about the case?

      How many paperback books did Amazon sell from the first day the
      book went on sale on Amazon?
      ISBN-10: 1524602639 and 13: 9781524602635

      How many e-books did Amazon sell from the first day the book went
      on sale on Amazon? Former ASIN Number: B01EFU8HVY (Now has a
      new ASIN number)

Complaint, August 19, 2022. Attached to the complaint are printouts from various

book sellers’ websites that advertise Iannetta’s book for sale and a royalty report

from an unknown source that reflects the sale of six copies of Iannetta’s book.

              The complaint was served on Amazon in January 2023. On February

2, 2023, Amazon filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Civ.R.

12(B)(6). The motion to dismiss was unopposed, and the trial court summarily

granted the motion on February 22, 2023.

              On March 24, 2023, Iannetta filed a timely appeal, presenting this

assignment of error for our review: “The trial court did [err] granting Amazon’s

motion to dismiss.”

Legal Analysis

              Iannetta argues that the trial court erred when it dismissed his

discovery lawsuit filed pursuant to R.C. 2317.48 seeking the exact number of his

books that Amazon had sold. Amazon disputes that Iannetta filed a discovery

complaint merely seeking discovery. Amazon argues that the trial court properly

dismissed Iannetta’s complaint because (1) Ohio does not recognize an independent
cause of action to enforce or seek damages relating to a subpoena and, (2)

alternatively, assuming an independent cause of action to seek damages stemming

from a subpoena was available, the action must fail because the subpoena in

question was invalid and unenforceable.        We find that regardless of whether

Iannetta’s complaint was meant to initiate a lawsuit or obtain discovery under R.C.

2317.48, the trial court did not err when it granted Amazon’s motion to dismiss.

               A Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on

which relief can be granted “is procedural and tests the sufficiency of the complaint.”

State ex rel. Hanson v. Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 65 Ohio St.3d 545, 548, 605

N.E.2d 378 (1992), citing Assn. for Defense of Washington Local School Dist. v.

Kiger, 42 Ohio St.3d 116, 117, 537 N.E.2d 1292 (1989). We review a dismissal

pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) de novo. Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d

79, 2004-Ohio-4362, 814 N.E.2d 44, ¶ 5.

               In our review of a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss, we must accept

the material allegations of the complaint as true and make all reasonable inferences

in favor of the plaintiff. Jenkins v. Cleveland, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104768, 2017-

Ohio-1054, ¶ 8, citing Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 106 Ohio St.3d 278, 2005-Ohio-

4985, 834 N.E.2d 791, ¶ 6. For a party to ultimately prevail on the motion, it must

appear from the face of the complaint that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that

would justify a trial court granting relief. Jenkins at id., citing O’Brien v. Univ.

Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242, 245, 327 N.E.2d 753 (1975).
               The basis of Iannetta’s complaint is not readily discernible. Initially,

we review the complaint under the most likely premise that Iannetta filed a

discovery complaint in accordance with R.C. 2317.48. Although the pleading does

not reference the statute, it is titled “pre-suit complaint for discovery” and seeks the

answers to three interrogatory questions.

               R.C. 2317.48 allows a party to obtain discovery prior to filing a

complaint, and provides:

      When a person claiming to have a cause of action or a defense to an
      action commenced against him, without the discovery of a fact from the
      adverse party, is unable to file his complaint or answer, he may bring
      an action for discovery, setting forth in his complaint in the action for
      discovery the necessity and the grounds for the action, with any
      interrogatories relating to the subject matter of the discovery that are
      necessary to procure the discovery sought. Unless a motion to dismiss
      the action is filed under Civil Rule 12, the complaint shall be fully and
      directly answered under oath by the defendant. Upon the final
      disposition of the action, the costs of the action shall be taxed in the
      manner the court deems equitable.

               “An action for discovery is to be used only to uncover facts necessary

for pleading, not to gather proof to support a claim or to determine whether a cause

of action exists.” Huge v. Ford Motor Co., 155 Ohio App.3d 730, 2004-Ohio-232,

803 N.E.2d 859, ¶ 10 (8th Dist.), citing Marsalis v. Wilson, 149 Ohio App.3d 637,

2002-Ohio-5534, 778 N.E.2d 612 (2d Dist.). “This form of action occupies a small

niche between an unacceptable ‘fishing expedition’ and a short and plain statement

of a complaint or a defense filed pursuant to the Civil Rules.” Poulos v. Parker

Sweeper Co., 44 Ohio St.3d 124, 127, 541 N.E.2d 1031 (1989). In other words, R.C.

2317.48 provides “a ‘satisfactory middle course’ for litigants who require additional
facts in order to sufficiently file a valid complaint, but who already have enough

factual basis for their assertions that the discovery process would not be turned into

a ‘fishing expedition.’” Fasteners for Retail v. Peck, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 70818,

1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 1334, 3 (Apr. 3, 1997), citing Poulos at 126. “Broad assertions

of potential claims will not suffice; instead, ‘[i]t must be clear to the court what the

underlying claim is about.’” TILR Corp. v. TalentNow, LLC, 1st Dist. Hamilton No.

C-220323, 2023-Ohio-1345, ¶ 19, quoting Colegate v. Lohbeck, 78 Ohio App.3d 727,

730, 605 N.E.2d 1301 (1st Dist.1992).

                Here, Iannetta’s discovery complaint asked what facts Amazon knew

about the case and how many of Iannetta’s books Amazon sold since it first listed his

book for sale. Iannetta sought information to determine if he had a cause of action

against Amazon rather than requesting information to clarify a specific fact.

Iannetta sought information that is exactly what Poulos described as a fishing

expedition and is not permitted under R.C. 2317.48. Thus, Iannetta did not raise a

justiciable cause of action against Amazon and discovery was not permissible per

R.C. 2317.48.

                Alternatively, assuming Iannetta filed a complaint to initiate a lawsuit

as argued by Amazon, the pleading failed to state a claim upon which relief could be

granted. A plain reading of the complaint indicates Iannetta alleged if Amazon failed

to notify Authorhouse of the actual number of Iannetta’s books it had sold on its

website, Amazon owed Iannetta compensatory and punitive damages, attorney fees,
and court costs. It is unclear whether Iannetta’s allegations are based upon a

contract dispute or a deficiency related to the subpoena.

               To state a claim for breach-of-contract, the plaintiff must allege (1)

the existence of a binding contract, (2) the nonbreaching party performed his or her

contractual obligations, (3) the other party failed to fulfill its contractual obligations

without legal excuse, and (4) the nonbreaching party suffered damages as a result of

the breach. Cynergies Consulting, Inc. v. Wheeler, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 90225,

2008-Ohio-3362, ¶ 15, citing All Star Land Title Agency, Inc. v. Surewin Invest.,

Inc., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 87569, 2006-Ohio-5729. Iannetta failed to reference

or attach a contract — either with Authorhouse or Amazon — in support of his

allegations and did not state that he performed any contractual obligations. Absent

such allegations, Iannetta’s complaint failed to state a claim for breach of contract

upon which relief could be granted. Further, if the complaint sought compliance

with Iannetta’s previously issued subpoena — as argued by Amazon — Iannetta did

not identify such a cause of action or reference a relevant statute, code section, or

case law in support of such an allegation.

               Accordingly, Iannetta’s complaint did not state a claim upon which

relief could be granted and his assignment of error is overruled.

               Judgment affirmed.

      It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.

      The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
      It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the

common 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.

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, PRESIDING JUDGE

MARY J. BOYLE, J., and
MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J., CONCUR