Are We Dating the Same Vexatious Litigator Whose Filings Cite Nonexistent Cases?

In Souders v. Lazor, decided Wednesday by the Ohio Court of Appeals (Judge Marilyn Zayas, joined by Judges Terrance Nestor and Richard Moore), Souders sued based on “certain posts made in a Facebook group entitled, ‘Are We Dating the Same Guy Cincinnati/Dayton'”:

[T]wo of the named defendants … filed a motion to dismiss Souders’ claims against them. The motion to dismiss asserted that the allegations against them arose from representation of their clients …. Additionally, appellees subsequently answered the complaint and filed a joint counterclaim to declare Souders a vexatious litigator under R.C. 2323.52….

The motion claimed that Souders’ Hamilton County complaints “stemmed from his ‘spurned attempts’ to date defendant” Lazor:

After Lazor and Souders matched on a dating app and began talking, Lazor posted Souders’ photo “to a community of local women” to gather background information on Souders, where she learned of several negative encounters with him. Lazor then attempted to stop communicating with Souders, but he continued to contact her—despite being blocked—on other social-media accounts, either as himself or while using a fake profile. Simultaneously, Souders sent a cease-and-desist letter to Lazor’s home address, demanding that she remove the post about him.

Concerned about her personal safety and how Souders knew her address, Lazor filed for a civil stalking protection order (“CSPO”) in Warren County where she resides. Shortly thereafter, Souders initiated the first Hamilton County action in the case …. Ultimately, the Hamilton County case was dismissed, and Lazor was granted a CSPO in the Warren County case. [For more on the Warren County case, see this 2024 post. -EV] Thereafter, Souder initiated the instant action.

The substance of the summary-judgment motion argued that Souders engaged in conduct intended to harass or maliciously injure the defendants in the Hamilton County actions, including obligating the defendants to “expend significant time, money, and effort to combat his frivolous litigation,” and asserting disparaging allegations against the defendants that were wholly irrelevant to his claims. The motion further argued that Souders’ claims were unwarranted and had no good-faith basis in the law, and claimed that Souders persistently requested the same relief, regardless of prior rulings.

The motion also pointed to other cases, outside of the instant matter, to show that Souders “has a long history of needlessly and meritlessly complicating other cases.” …

The trial court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of appellees and declared Souders to be a vexatious litigator. … The court [concluded] that Souders “filed multiple motions and briefs that include statements wholly irrelevant to this lawsuit and repeatedly reargues issues this Court has already decided.” The court noted that over 13 pages of his response in opposition to summary judgment was focused on challenging the court’s dismissal of his claims, rather than addressing the summary-judgment motion.

Additionally, the court found that Souders used “incomplete, incorrect, irrelevant,” or nonexisting legal citations in his motion for reconsideration of the court’s dismissal of his complaint and moved for findings of fact and conclusions of law when it was not warranted under the law or made on a good-faith basis under existing law.

Even further, the court found that Souders’ conduct “serves to harass or maliciously injure Defendants,” where he asserted irrelevant statements against the defendants such as stating that certain defendants expressed a desire to be sexually intimate with him, attempted to solicit him to purchase a membership to her OnlyFans account, or suffered from a mental illness….

Souders argued on appeal that the trial court improperly labeled him “a vexatious litigator,” which “violates his First Amendment right to ‘seek redress of his grievances'”:

In support of this argument, he cites to “White v. Gainer, No. 06-C-367, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27813, at * 19 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 9, 2007).” However, this case does not exist.

Nonetheless, in Deters v. Briggs, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 6419 (1st Dist. Dec. 31, 1998), this court addressed a First Amendment challenge to R.C. 2323.52 [the vexatious litigator statute]. Recognizing the burden that frivolous filings place on the court system and the inherent authority of courts to provide relief against frivolous filings and abuses, this court held that “the restriction on First Amendment activity imposed by R.C. 2323.52 is constitutionally permissible” because “it furthers an important governmental interest in a reasonable manner.” … R.C. 2323.52 [“]is not designed, nor does it operate, to preclude vexatious litigators from proceeding forward on their legitimate claims. Instead, it establishes a screening mechanism under which the vexatious litigator can petition the declaring court, on a case-by-case basis, for a determination of whether any proposed action is abusive or groundless.[“] …

Beyond that, Souders makes only a conclusory assertion that “the litigation pursued by him was neither frivolous in nature nor intended to cause harm or injury to any party.” In doing so, he does not cite the record or advance an argument specifically addressing the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2323.52, appellees’ motion for summary judgment, or any of his claims….

Souders fails to make any argument as to why any of the claims in his complaint were warranted under the law or why he had reasonable grounds for any of his actions. Instead, Souders simply asserts that he sufficiently pled “lawless” or “wrongful” conduct. In doing so, a majority of the cases he cites in support of his argument either do not exist or do not stand for what he claims they do. Further, he fails to specifically reference even a single claim—out of eleven—in his complaint when making his arguments. Beyond that, Souders does not present any argument as to the adequacy of appellees’ summary-judgment motion or make any specific challenge to any of the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2323.52.…