Opinion
Case No. 2019-00911AD
01-24-2020
ANGELA D. SUCHETKA Plaintiff v. OHIO STATE HIGHWAY PATROL Defendant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
{¶1} Angela D. Suchetka ("plaintiff") filed a complaint against defendant, Ohio State Highway Patrol ("OSHP"). Plaintiff asserts that she is a police officer with the Village of Gates Mills, Ohio. Plaintiff further asserts that, on August 26, 2017, at 9:24 p.m., on U.S. 322 eastbound, about .50 miles west of Chagrin River Road in Gates Mills, she was involved in a traffic accident with another vehicle. Plaintiff states:
"The State Highway Patrol conducted the accident investigation and subsequently cited this officer for seatbelt and right of way on a highway. Upon further investigation by the Highway Patrol approximately 2 weeks after the issuance of the citation to this officer, both vehicles [sic] internal computers were pulled and the data was analyzed by the Highway Patrol. The data showed that this officer was in fact wearing a seatbelt and showed that the other party/vehicle involved was traveling at a very high rate of speed. This officer had to appear before Lyndhurst Municipal Court with an attorney hired by this officer where all traffic charges were dropped due to the findings of the vehicles [sic] internal computers."
{¶2} Plaintiff's complaint seeks damages in the amount of $2,500.00, which plaintiff describes as "personal attorney fees." Plaintiff did not append documentation with the complaint to support the claim for damages.
{¶3} OSHP filed and Investigation Report with exhibits. OSHP contends that a "fair interpretation" of the complaint suggests that plaintiff "is asserting a claim of malicious prosecution, as she is seeking compensation for costs from a discontinued criminal case." OSHP maintains that plaintiff's claim is time-barred and that, even if plaintiff's claims were not time-barred, plaintiff cannot successfully prove all the elements of malicious prosecution.
{¶4} Plaintiff responded to OSHP's Investigation Report, discussing in the response certain events that transpired between her and OSHP following the accident. To the response plaintiff appended copies of paid invoices from a law firm in the amounts of $500, $400, $400 ($1,300.00 in total) and a copy of a photograph that plaintiff represents depicts the accident scene.
{¶5} Plaintiff's complaint does not identify a cause of action. However, because plaintiff's action is civil in nature, plaintiff is required to establish her claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See Weishaar v. Strimbu, 76 Ohio App.3d 276, 282, 601 N.E.2d 587 (8th Dist.1991). Insofar as plaintiff disputes the Ohio State Highway Patrol's findings and conclusions relative to the criminal charges brought against her arising from the accident in August 2017, plaintiff's complaint reasonably may be construed to suggest a claim of malicious criminal prosecution. In Trussell v. GMC, 53 Ohio St.3d 142, 559 N.E.2d 732 (1990), the Ohio Supreme Court discussed the elements of the tort of malicious criminal prosecution, holding at syllabus: "The elements of the tort of malicious criminal prosecution are (1) malice in instituting or continuing the prosecution, (2) lack of probable cause, and (3) termination of the prosecution in favor of the accused. Arrest of the plaintiff or seizure of his property is not a necessary element." Here, even assuming for the sake of argument that plaintiff's claim of malicious criminal prosecution is not time-barred, see R.C. 2305.11(A) (requiring an action for malicious prosecution to be commenced within one year after the cause of action accrued); Cromartie v. Goolsby, 8th Dist. No. 93438, 2010-Ohio-2604, ¶ 31, plaintiff has not produced evidence as to all of the elements of malicious criminal prosecution. Based on the evidence presented, the court does not find evidence that OSHP acted maliciously in filing the criminal charges against plaintiff, nor has plaintiff provided an indication as to a lack of probable cause for the filing of criminal charges. Moreover, since, according to plaintiff, the traffic charges filed against her "were dropped," there does not appear to have been an adjudication in plaintiff's favor in the criminal matter. The court determines that plaintiff has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence the necessary elements to successfully prosecute a suggested claim of malicious criminal prosecution.
{¶6} Based on the evidence presented, the court also determines that plaintiff has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence a right to attorney fees. In McConnell v. Hunt Sports Ents., 132 Ohio App.3d 657, 699, 725 N.E.2d 1193 (10th Dist.1999) the Tenth District Court of Appeals discussed attorney fee awards, stating: "In regard to attorney fee awards, Ohio adheres to the so-called 'American rule' which requires that each party involved in litigation pay his or her own attorney fees in most circumstances. * * * Exceptions to this rule include when contractual provisions between parties shift the costs of defending, where there has been a finding of bad faith, and where statutory provisions specifically provide that a prevailing party may recover attorney fees." Accord Starinki v. Pace, 81 Ohio App.3d 113, 115, 610 N.E.2d 494 (9th Dist.1991). Absent evidence in the claim file that supports a finding of bad faith, the court concludes that plaintiff is not entitled to an award of attorney fees based on a suggested claim of malicious criminal prosecution.
{¶7} Accordingly, for reasons set forth above, judgment is rendered in favor of OSHP. Case No. 2019-00911AD Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert ANGELA D. SUCHETKA Plaintiff v. OHIO STATE HIGHWAY PATROL Defendant
ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION
{¶8} Having considered all the evidence in the claim file, and for the reasons set forth in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff.
/s/_________
DANIEL R. BORCHERT
Deputy Clerk Filed 1/24/20
Sent to S.C. reporter 3/4/20