Court rules in favor of Greenfield in civil suit brought by former law director
By
Brandy Chandler-brandychandler@gmail.com
A judge has ruled in favor of a motion for summary judgment for the village of Greenfield and several former city leaders in a civil suit brought by Greenfield’s former law director that alleged “in concert with each other, and with malice of purpose, bad faith and in a wanton and reckless manner unlawfully conspired to terminate (the law director) from the office of law director.”
The suit was brought against Greenfield by former city law director Conrad Curren in response to what he said was wrongful termination in November 2008. Curren had sought $14,000 in lost salary from the city and a total of $25,000 from former city manager Charles Bowman, current city council member Harvey Everhart, and former council members Earlene Scott and John Wagoner.
In a decision filed last week in Highland County Common Pleas Court, visiting Judge Dale Crawford ruled that, “there are no issues of material fact and defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
On Aug. 10, Crawford had denied an initial motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants, stating that there were, “some issues of material fact regarding some legal issues presented in the motion.” The defendants filed a new motion, he said, supporting their arguments with legal authority, and submitted evidence other than the city ordinances at issue.
In his complaint filed in January, Curren, who is represented by Hillsboro Attorney Jon Hapner, alleged that:
• He was terminated as a result of conspiratorial, fraudulent and concerted action by defendants Wagoner, Everhart, Scott and Bowman.
• The action to terminate was void because one defendant, John Wagoner, was not entitled to hold office.
• The action to terminate him violated his constitutional rights in that he was not given the opportunity to respond.
• The individual defendants conspired to file a complaint against him before the Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court and such complaint contained a forged signature.
• The defendants engaged in fraudulent, malicious activity which amounted to a fraudulent termination.
• The alleged conspiracy violated Ohio’s Sunshine Law.
Regarding Curren’s allegation, the court found that Curren position was unclassified service and that, “unclassified service are employees at will of the appointing authority and can be terminated without cause and without any due process hearing rights.”
The court found that the defendant’s terminated his employ rather “because he violated his position of trust, and took public positions contrary to his client’s interests. (Curren) claims there was a conspiracy to get him fired. The defendants did what they had a legal right to do - terminate (Curren) with or without cause. Whether they engaged in a conspiracy or engaged in some form of fraud to accomplish the legal result is not actionable.”
According to the court documents, “(Curren) has generally alleged fraud in the complaint but has not pled fraud with particularity as required. Nor has (Curren) set forth any factual matter, by way of deposition or otherwise to support the claim of fraud. (Curren’s) only response to the requirement of pleading fraud with particularity is: ‘the idea that plaintiff failed to
plead the allegations of fraud with particularity, leaves the defendant barking at the moon.’ (Curren) erroneously believes that the issue of particularity can only be raised by a motion to the pleadings and not a motion to the summary judgment.
“The issue presented ... is whether there exists a material issue of fact regarding fraud, conspiracy and malicious activity. The answer is no.”
Additionally, the court found that “it is agreed by the parties that the city was acting in a government function in terminating (Curren) and is immune from suit.With respect to the individual council members, they can only be liable if they engaged in tortious [wrongful] action that rises to the level of intentional and/or malicious acts taken in bad faith. The act of terminating the plaintiff, for whatever reason, was legal.
“However, the court has reviewed all matters presented with this motion, including (Curren’s) affidavits that have been objected to, and has determined that there is no issue of fact or law regarding whether the defendants acted ‘intentionally,’ ‘maliciously,’ or taken in ‘bad faith.’ Plaintiff clearly violated his fiduciary relationship with the defendants and there existed cause to terminate him.”
Regarding the Sunshine Law allegation, the court found that the statute of limitations had expired.[[In-content Ad]]
The suit was brought against Greenfield by former city law director Conrad Curren in response to what he said was wrongful termination in November 2008. Curren had sought $14,000 in lost salary from the city and a total of $25,000 from former city manager Charles Bowman, current city council member Harvey Everhart, and former council members Earlene Scott and John Wagoner.
In a decision filed last week in Highland County Common Pleas Court, visiting Judge Dale Crawford ruled that, “there are no issues of material fact and defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
On Aug. 10, Crawford had denied an initial motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants, stating that there were, “some issues of material fact regarding some legal issues presented in the motion.” The defendants filed a new motion, he said, supporting their arguments with legal authority, and submitted evidence other than the city ordinances at issue.
In his complaint filed in January, Curren, who is represented by Hillsboro Attorney Jon Hapner, alleged that:
• He was terminated as a result of conspiratorial, fraudulent and concerted action by defendants Wagoner, Everhart, Scott and Bowman.
• The action to terminate was void because one defendant, John Wagoner, was not entitled to hold office.
• The action to terminate him violated his constitutional rights in that he was not given the opportunity to respond.
• The individual defendants conspired to file a complaint against him before the Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court and such complaint contained a forged signature.
• The defendants engaged in fraudulent, malicious activity which amounted to a fraudulent termination.
• The alleged conspiracy violated Ohio’s Sunshine Law.
Regarding Curren’s allegation, the court found that Curren position was unclassified service and that, “unclassified service are employees at will of the appointing authority and can be terminated without cause and without any due process hearing rights.”
The court found that the defendant’s terminated his employ rather “because he violated his position of trust, and took public positions contrary to his client’s interests. (Curren) claims there was a conspiracy to get him fired. The defendants did what they had a legal right to do - terminate (Curren) with or without cause. Whether they engaged in a conspiracy or engaged in some form of fraud to accomplish the legal result is not actionable.”
According to the court documents, “(Curren) has generally alleged fraud in the complaint but has not pled fraud with particularity as required. Nor has (Curren) set forth any factual matter, by way of deposition or otherwise to support the claim of fraud. (Curren’s) only response to the requirement of pleading fraud with particularity is: ‘the idea that plaintiff failed to
plead the allegations of fraud with particularity, leaves the defendant barking at the moon.’ (Curren) erroneously believes that the issue of particularity can only be raised by a motion to the pleadings and not a motion to the summary judgment.
“The issue presented ... is whether there exists a material issue of fact regarding fraud, conspiracy and malicious activity. The answer is no.”
Additionally, the court found that “it is agreed by the parties that the city was acting in a government function in terminating (Curren) and is immune from suit.With respect to the individual council members, they can only be liable if they engaged in tortious [wrongful] action that rises to the level of intentional and/or malicious acts taken in bad faith. The act of terminating the plaintiff, for whatever reason, was legal.
“However, the court has reviewed all matters presented with this motion, including (Curren’s) affidavits that have been objected to, and has determined that there is no issue of fact or law regarding whether the defendants acted ‘intentionally,’ ‘maliciously,’ or taken in ‘bad faith.’ Plaintiff clearly violated his fiduciary relationship with the defendants and there existed cause to terminate him.”
Regarding the Sunshine Law allegation, the court found that the statute of limitations had expired.[[In-content Ad]]