Kettering Adventist Healthcare d/b/a Kettering Health Network v. Sandra Collier, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio sustains the motion to dismiss filed by Epstein Becker & Green, PC and associated attorneys, dismissing Sandra Collier and Mary T. Scott’s counterclaims and third-party claims against those defendants with prejudice. The court applies Ohio’s absolute litigation privilege to claims based on statements made in the litigation, while noting that federal claims may not be categorically barred by that privilege. The court also orders Scott and counsel H. Leon Hewitt to show cause why they should not face Rule 11 sanctions and contempt for allegedly relying on fabricated or materially inaccurate legal authorities.

Holdings

1. Ohio's absolute litigation privilege barred Collier and Scott's state-law claims for false light, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy because the alleged misconduct consisted of statements and litigation filings made during or in connection with the pending judicial proceeding.
2. Collier failed to state an employment-retaliation claim against the EBG defendants because she did not allege facts showing that outside counsel controlled her employment, functioned as her joint employer, or otherwise had the ability to interfere with her employment.
3. Collier and Scott failed to state a civil RICO claim because they did not plausibly allege a cognizable business-or-property injury caused by the EBG defendants or a pattern of racketeering activity.
4. The court ordered Scott and H. Leon Hewitt to show cause within fourteen days why their alleged repeated citation fabrications and misrepresentations did not violate Rule 11(b), warrant contempt, or justify sanctions.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Ohio's absolute litigation privilege barred Collier and Scott's state-law claims based on statements and filings made in the underlying litigation.
2. Whether Collier plausibly stated a federal or Ohio employment-retaliation claim against the EBG defendants, who acted as Kettering's outside counsel.
3. Whether Collier and Scott plausibly stated a civil RICO claim against the EBG defendants by alleging cognizable injury and a pattern of racketeering activity.
4. Whether the court should order Scott and H. Leon Hewitt to show cause regarding alleged violations of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b), contempt, and sanctions.

Disposition

dismissed