[Cite as King v. Semi Valley Sound, L.L.C., 2011-Ohio-3567.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
DERRICK M. KING C.A. No. 25655
Appellant
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE SEMI VALLEY SOUND, LLC, et al. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO Appellees CASE No. CV 2010-07-4777
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: July 20, 2011
DICKINSON, Judge.
INTRODUCTION
{¶1} In late June 2010, Derrick King learned that his name and address had been
published along with his photograph under the heading of “Local Registered Sexual Offenders”
in the Summit County edition of Busted magazine. Acting pro se, Mr. King promptly filed a
complaint against the publishers for false light invasion of privacy, defamation, and intentional
infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the
complaint under Rule 12(B)(6) of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. Mr. King has appealed the
trial court’s ruling regarding the invasion of privacy and defamation claims. This Court reverses
the trial court’s order granting the motion to dismiss the invasion of privacy claims because we
cannot say that it appears beyond doubt that Mr. King can prove no set of facts warranting
recovery. This court affirms the trial court’s order dismissing the defamation claims because Mr.
King did not allege any special damage flowing from the publication and the allegedly 2
defamatory statement was not likely to cause him to be subjected to ridicule, hatred, or contempt,
or injure him in his trade or profession.
BACKGROUND
{¶2} Initially, Mr. King filed a complaint against Semi Valley Sound LLC, Dan
Oakley, Ryan Trombley, and Elsie Sanchez for false light invasion of privacy, defamation of
character, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In his complaint, he asserted that
Busted magazine is a publication designed to show the mug shots of people recently arrested in a
designated community as well as local registered sex offenders. He also asserted that he “was a
former registered sex offender as a result of a 1991 conviction for gross sexual imposition that
was committed in the State of Ohio.”
{¶3} Mr. King explained in his complaint that he was required to register as a sex
offender until August 8, 2007. Then his registration requirement was extended until August 8,
2012 by the passage of Ohio’s Adam Walsh Act. According to his complaint, Mr. King filed a
lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the changes in state law. He alleged that the Summit
County Sheriff Department’s registered sex offender website then noted on Mr. King’s listing
that the entry was “stayed by court[.]” Finally, he alleged that his duty to register as a sex
offender “was terminated as a result of the June 3, 2010[,] . . . decision by the Ohio Supreme
Court in State v. Bodyke, 2010-Ohio-2424.” He attached to his complaint a photocopy of the
June 2010 edition of the Busted publication including his photograph; the Summit County
Sheriff Department’s registered sex offender website entry identifying Mr. King; and a
notification letter to Mr. King from the Ohio Attorney General, indicating that, due to the ruling
in Bodyke, his registration period has expired and he no longer has any duty to register in Ohio. 3
{¶4} Mr. King alleged that Semi Valley Sound published Busted magazine and that
each of the individually named defendants were either partners or managers of the company. In
response, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(B)(6) of the Ohio Rules
of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Mr. King
opposed the motion and, while it remained pending, filed an amended complaint without leave of
court. In his amended complaint, he removed Mr. Oakley and Ms. Sanchez and added as
defendants Christine Albright, Justin Albright, and an unknown number of John/Jane Does,
whom he alleged were members of Semi Valley Sound as defined by Florida law. The amended
complaint contained the same claims as the original. The defendants named in the amended
complaint then moved for dismissal of the amended complaint under Rule 12(B)(6) of the Ohio
Rules of Civil Procedure based on the arguments presented in the original motion to dismiss.
Mr. King also opposed the second motion to dismiss.
{¶5} The trial court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss both complaints, and
Mr. King has appealed the trial court’s dismissal of his invasion of privacy and defamation
claims. He has not appealed the trial court’s order dismissing his intentional infliction of
emotional distress claims.
THE COMPLAINTS
{¶6} There seems to be some confusion in this matter regarding whether Mr. King was
permitted to amend his complaint. According to Mr. King, his amended complaint stated the
same grounds for relief as the original complaint, but dismissed Mr. Oakley and Ms. Sanchez
and added the Albrights and several unknown John/Jane Does as defendants. He has argued that
he was permitted to amend under Rule 15(A) of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure because that
rule allows “[a] party [to] amend his pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a 4
responsive pleading is served . . . .” Under Civil Rule 7(A), pleadings include only complaints,
answers, and replies. As the named defendants in this case never filed answers, but merely
moved to dismiss under Rule 12(B)(6), Mr. King did not require leave of court to amend his
complaint. See State ex rel. Hanson v. Guernsey County Bd. Of Comm’rs, 65 Ohio St. 3d 545,
549 (1992). Thus, the amended complaint was the only viable pleading at the time the trial court
ruled on the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
CIVIL RULE 12(B)(6)
{¶7} This Court reviews an order granting a Civil Rule 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss de
novo. Perrysburg Twp. v. City of Rossford, 103 Ohio St. 3d 79, 2004-Ohio-4362, at ¶5. Given
the notice pleading requirements of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, “a plaintiff is not required
to prove his or her case at the pleading stage. Very often, the evidence necessary for a plaintiff
to prevail is not obtained until [he] is able to discover materials in the defendant’s possession.”
York v. Ohio State Highway Patrol, 60 Ohio St. 3d 143, 144-45 (1991). “Thus, to survive a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a pleader is
ordinarily not required to allege in the complaint every fact he or she intends to prove[.]” State
ex rel. Hanson v. Guernsey County Bd. Of Comm’rs, 65 Ohio St. 3d 545, 549 (1991). But see
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Ronan, 124 Ohio St. 3d 17, 2009-Ohio-5947, at ¶7-8
(complaint correctly dismissed under Civil Rule 12(B)(6) because plaintiff did not sufficiently
allege a required element of the claim although plaintiff would have had access to the relevant
evidence).
{¶8} In considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(B)(6), a court must consider
only the facts alleged in the complaint and any material incorporated into it. See Civ. R. 12(B);
Civ. R. 10(C); State ex rel. Crabtree v. Franklin County Bd. of Health, 77 Ohio St. 3d 247, 249 5
n.1 (1997). At this stage, the court “must presume that all factual allegations of the complaint
are true and make all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.” Mitchell v.
Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St. 3d 190, 192 (1988). “Then, before we may dismiss the complaint,
it must appear beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts warranting a recovery.” Id.
“[A]s long as there is a set of facts, consistent with the plaintiff’s complaint, which would allow
the plaintiff to recover, the court may not grant a defendant’s motion to dismiss.” York v. Ohio
State Highway Patrol, 60 Ohio St. 3d 143, 145 (1991).
FALSE LIGHT INVASION OF PRIVACY
{¶9} Mr. King’s first assignment of error is that the trial court erred by dismissing his
claims of invasion of privacy based on an incorrect determination that he does not have a right to
privacy under these circumstances. He has alleged the tort of false light invasion of privacy.
“One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public
in a false light is subject to liability to the other for invasion of privacy if (a) the false light in
which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and (b) the actor
had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the
false light in which the other would be placed.” Welling v. Weinfeld, 113 Ohio St. 3d 464, 2007-
Ohio-2451, at syllabus (adopting Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 652E (1977)). Mr. King has
argued that Semi Valley Sound publicized his name, address, and photograph, claiming that he
was a registered sex offender when he was not.
{¶10} Mr. King included the following allegations in his complaint. He alleged that he
had been convicted of a sex offense in 1991 and was required to register as a sex offender until
August 2007. Due to Ohio’s adoption of the Adam Walsh Act in 2006, the state extended his
registration requirements until 2012. Sometime later, Mr. King filed a lawsuit challenging the 6
constitutionality of the new law, causing the Summit County Sheriff’s Department to alter his
entry on its official sex offender website. According to the complaint, the Summit County
Sheriff’s Department marked his online registry with the notation “stayed by court.” On June 3,
2010, the Ohio Supreme Court released its decision in State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St. 3d 266,
2010-Ohio-2424, terminating Mr. King’s duty to register as a sex offender.
{¶11} Mr. King alleged that Busted magazine labeled him a registered sex offender by
including his photograph, name, and address under the heading of “Local Registered Sexual
Offenders” in its June 2010 issue. Mr. King attached to his complaint a copy of a letter he
received from the Ohio Attorney General’s office, notifying him that, due to the Supreme
Court’s decision in Bodyke, his registration period had expired and he no longer had a duty to
register in Ohio. After incorporating all of the factual allegations from the first nineteen
paragraphs of his complaint, Mr. King went on to allege that Semi Valley Sound had placed him
in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and that it had knowledge of
or acted in reckless disregard of the falsity of the material and the false light into which it would
place Mr. King.
{¶12} Presuming that all of the factual allegations are true and making all reasonable
inferences in Mr. King’s favor, as we must at this stage of the proceeding, this Court must
determine whether he could potentially prove a set of facts warranting recovery for false light
invasion of privacy. Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St. 3d 190, 192 (1988); Civ. R.
12(B)(6). Mr. King has alleged that Semi Valley Sound publicized his personal identification,
including his name, address, and likeness in a magazine, placing him in a false light by labeling
him a local registered sex offender. Given the standard applicable to a motion to dismiss for 7
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, Mr. King’s allegations satisfy the
requirements of a false light invasion of privacy claim.
{¶13} He has alleged that Semi Valley Sound publicized that he was a registered sex
offender at a time when he was not a registered sex offender and that it acted in reckless
disregard of the falsity of that information either by ignoring the stay on his official registry entry
and/or by ignoring the import of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bodyke. Mr. King also alleged
that the false light into which the magazine placed him would be highly offensive to a reasonable
person. Although Semi Valley Sound recognized in its appellate brief that “the applicable
standard is not what is highly offensive to [Mr. King,] but what is ‘highly offensive to a
reasonable person[,]’” it argued that the average person reading Busted magazine would not be
highly offended by the difference between a registered sex offender and a formerly registered sex
offender. The question, however, is what a reasonable person whose photograph and personal
information is published in Busted magazine under the heading of “Registered Sexual
Offenders” would find highly offensive.
{¶14} The Restatement of the Law, 2d, Torts (1977), Section 652E, adopted by the Ohio
Supreme Court in Welling v. Weinfeld, 113 Ohio St. 3d 464, 2007-Ohio-2451, at syllabus,
indicates that it is not necessary that a plaintiff be defamed in order to recover for a false light
invasion of privacy. “It is enough that he is given unreasonable and highly objectionable
publicity that attributes to him characteristics, conduct or beliefs that are false, and so is placed
before the public in a false position.” Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 652E, cmt. b (1977).
Comment b to Section 652E includes illustrations of this concept. For example, a person who
induces a Democrat to sign a petition nominating someone for office will be subject to liability
for invasion of the Democrat’s privacy if he continues to circulate the petition after the Democrat 8
realizes that the nominee is a Republican and requests that his name be removed from the
petition. Id. at illus. 4. The false light into which the plaintiff is cast must be highly offensive to
a reasonable person. “In other words, it applies only when the defendant knows that the plaintiff,
as a reasonable man, would be justified in the eyes of the community in feeling seriously
offended and aggrieved by the publicity.” Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 652E, cmt. c (1977).
Absent special circumstances, unimportant details, such as a wrong residential address or a
mistake in the date he entered his employment would not give any serious offense to a
reasonable person and, therefore, would not invade a plaintiff’s privacy, even if made
deliberately. Id. “It is only when there is such a major misrepresentation of his character,
history, activities or beliefs that serious offense may reasonably be expected to be taken by a
reasonable man in his position, that there is a cause of action for invasion of privacy.” Id. For
example, according to the Restatement, a movie made about a harrowing, albeit ultimately
successful, flight over the Atlantic may expose the broadcaster to liability for false light invasion
of privacy of the pilot even without depicting him in a negative light. For instance, the movie
may depict the pilot “praying, reassuring passengers, and otherwise conducting himself in a
fictitious manner that does not defame him in any way[.]” Id. at illus. 9. According to the
Restatement, “[w]hether this is an invasion of [the pilot’s] privacy depends upon whether it is
found by the jury that the scenes would be highly objectionable to a reasonable man in [the
pilot’s] position.” Id. Mr. King alleged that he had been convicted of a crime, had served his
period of registration, and successfully fought the State of Ohio on an attempted five-year
extension of his registration requirements. Because a reasonable jury could find that Mr. King’s
profile in Busted magazine would be highly objectionable to a reasonable man in Mr. King’s
position, this Court cannot say that it “appear[s] beyond doubt that [Mr. King] can prove no set 9
of facts warranting recovery.” Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St. 3d 190, 192 (1988).
Therefore, his first assignment of error is sustained.
DEFAMATION
{¶15} Mr. King’s second assignment of error is that the trial court incorrectly dismissed
his defamation claims under Rule 12(B)(6) of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure because it
incorrectly determined that the word “registered” is not defamatory when used in reference to a
convicted sex offender. To overcome a motion to dismiss for failure to state a defamation claim,
Mr. King had to allege facts in support of five elements: “(1) a false and defamatory statement,
(2) about plaintiff, (3) published without privilege to a third party, (4) with fault of at least
negligence on the part of the defendant, and (5) that was either defamatory per se or caused
special harm to the plaintiff.” Ne. Ohio Elite Gymnastics Training Ctr. Inc. v. Osborne, 183
Ohio App. 3d 104, 2009-Ohio-2612, at ¶7 (quoting Gosden v. Louis, 116 Ohio App. 3d 195, 206
(1996)). “Defamation per se occurs when material is defamatory on its face; defamation per
quod occurs when material is defamatory through interpretation or innuendo. Written matter is
libelous per se if, on its face, it reflects upon a person’s character in a manner that will cause him
to be ridiculed, hated, or held in contempt, or in a manner that will injure him in his trade or
profession.” Id. (quoting Gosden, 116 Ohio App. 3d at 206-07). “When not ambiguous, whether
a statement is defamation per se is a question of law for the trial court to determine.” Id. at ¶8.
{¶16} In his complaint, Mr. King alleged that Semi Valley’s Sound’s actions were false
and defamatory because the publication included him in a list of currently registered sex
offenders. He alleged that the defendants acted with intent and malice. Mr. King has not alleged
special harm resulting from the publication. Therefore, we must consider only whether the 10
allegedly defamatory statement was libelous per se. See State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v.
Ronan, 124 Ohio St. 3d 17, 2009-Ohio-5947, at ¶7-8.
{¶17} Mr. King has admitted that he is a sex offender. According to him, the only false
word in the publication is the word “registered,” which implies that, at the time of publication, he
was required to register his status as a sex offender with local law enforcement authorities.
Being publically identified as a sex offender, regardless of registration status, is likely to cause a
person to be subjected to ridicule, hatred, and contempt. This Court, however, does not believe
that being falsely identified as a “registered” sex offender would cause Mr. King to be subjected
to ridicule, hatred, or contempt, or injure him in his trade or profession beyond what he would be
subjected to simply by being identified as a sex offender. Ne. Ohio Elite Gymnastics Training
Ctr. Inc. v. Osborne, 183 Ohio App. 3d 104, 2009-Ohio-2612, at ¶7 (quoting Gosden v. Louis,
116 Ohio App. 3d 195, 206-07 (1996)). Therefore, Mr. King has not alleged a set of facts
warranting recovery for defamation. Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St. 3d 190, 192
(1988); Civ. R. 12(B)(6). Mr. King’s second assignment of error is overruled.
THE TRUTH OR FALSITY OF THE STATEMENT
{¶18} Mr. King’s third assignment of error is that the trial court’s determination that the
published statements were true was against the manifest weight of the evidence. In light of this
Court’s analysis of Mr. King’s first and second assignments of error, this assignment is moot and
is overruled on that basis. See App. R. 12(A)(1)(c).
CONCLUSION
{¶19} Mr. King’s first assignment of error is sustained because this Court cannot say
that it appears beyond doubt that Mr. King can prove no set of facts warranting recovery on his
claim for false light invasion of privacy. His second assignment of error is overruled because he 11
did not allege any special damage flowing from the publication and the statement was not libel
per se. His third assignment of error is overruled as moot. The judgment of the Summit County
Court of Common Pleas is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and cause remanded.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(E). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to all parties equally.
CLAIR E. DICKINSON FOR THE COURT 12
MOORE, J. CONCURS IN PART, AND DISSENTS IN PART, SAYING:
{¶20} I respectfully dissent from the decision of the majority to reverse the trial court’s
dismissal of the false light invasion of privacy claim. I recognize that at the Civ.R. 12(B)(6)
stage of the proceedings, we are required to view all facts alleged in the complaint as true.
Doing so, I cannot conclude that a reasonable person would be highly offended after viewing Mr.
King’s image in a magazine as a registered sex offender to learn that he was previously required
for several years to register as a sex offender, but currently the registration was expired.
{¶21} I fully appreciate that to Mr. King, as an individual having pursued his rights
within the court system, the publication of his picture and personal information without the
accurate reference of “former registered sex offender” is offensive. However, the case law
makes clear that the standard is not personal; rather it is based on a reasonable person. The
publicity must be “of a kind that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. In other
words, it applies only when the defendant knows that the plaintiff, as a reasonable man, would be
justified in the eyes of the community in feeling seriously offended and aggrieved by the
publicity.” Welling v. Weinfeld, 113 Ohio St.3d 464, 2007-Ohio-2451, ¶55, quoting Restatement
of the Law 2d, Torts, Section 652E, Comment c. The Welling Court continued to quote the
Restatement, stating that “[i]t is only when there is such a major misrepresentation of his
character, history, activities or beliefs that serious offense may reasonably be expected to be
taken by a reasonable man in his position, that there is a cause of action for invasion of privacy.”
(Emphasis added). Id.
{¶22} Given that standard, I do not believe that a reasonable person would be highly
offended by the publication under these circumstances, and thus the trial court did not err in
dismissing the claim. 13
BELFANCE, P.J. CONCURS IN PART, AND DISSENTS IN PART, SAYING:
{¶23} I concur in the judgment with respect to the main opinion’s resolution of Mr.
King’s first assignment of error. However, with respect to the main opinion’s resolution of Mr.
King’s second assignment of error, I respectfully dissent as I would conclude that Mr. King’s
factual allegations are sufficient to survive a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss. Construing all
factual allegations as true and in a light most favorable to Mr. King, see Mitchell v. Lawson Milk
Co. (1988), 40 Ohio St. 3d 190, 192, I would conclude that he has stated a claim for defamation.
The main opinion engages in an analysis that essentially weighs the allegations instead of
examining the allegations broadly to determine if they are sufficient to state a claim. As noted
by the main opinion, Mr. King is not required to prove his case at this stage of the litigation. See
York v. Ohio State Highway Patrol (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 143, 144-145. The factual allegations
Mr. King asserted in his complaint address the basic elements of a defamation claim and thus
satisfy the notice pleading requirements of Civ.R. 8(A). See, e.g., Gall v. Dye (Sept. 8, 1999),
9th Dist. No. 98CA007183, at *3; Pollock v. Rashid (1996), 117 Ohio App.3d 361, 368-369;
Roe v. Franklin Cty. (1996), 109 Ohio App.3d 772, 785; Bayer v. Neff (Dec. 29, 1995), 11th
Dist. No. 95-L-044, at *6. Accordingly, I would also sustain Mr. King’s second assignment of
error.
APPEARANCES:
DERRICK M. KING, pro se, Appellant.
MARK W. BERNLOHR, and SARAH B. BAKER, Attorneys at Law, for Appellees.