Judge issues opinion in Frenchko case

County officials could face personal liabilities

CLICK HERE TO READ JUDGE’S RULING: Frenchko civil suit

WARREN -- Trumbull County commissioners and members of the Trumbull County Sheriff's Office could be found individually liable for punitive damages if a lawsuit filed by Commissioner Niki Frenchko moves to trial, according to an order filed by U.S. District Judge Philip Calabrese.

Calabrese's opinion Tuesday noted a jury could find Sheriff Paul Monroe, county Commissioner Mauro Cantalamessa, former Commissioner Frank Fuda and two sheriff's office sergeants conspired to have Frenchko arrested during a July 7, 2022, commissioners meeting.

The ruling comes in a federal civil rights lawsuit filed last year on Frenchko's behalf by attorneys David Betras and Matt Miller-Novak following her arrest and a separate event in March 2023, when Monroe knocked over Frenchko's cellphone while she recorded a commissioners meeting.

Frenchko claims her fellow commissioners, Monroe and sheriff's office Sgts. Harold Wix and Robert Ross conspired to have her falsely arrested during the 2022 meeting.

Betras said the judge's opinion indicates a jury could find that enough evidence exists to lead to a conspiracy finding against the defendants.

"The judge stripped them of qualified immunity," Betras said. "If we go to trial we can go after punitive damages of the individual defendants."

He added, "No insurance company will cover them for their acts."

While Frenchko won some of her requests for summary judgment and lost some, Betras said the win on the immunity issue is the most important.

He said the sheriff abused his police power. The way to seek justice, Betras said, is through obtaining monetary damages.

Fuda, who has since left office, was chairing the July 7, 2022, meeting when Frenchko spoke over him and a commissioners clerk who was reading a letter from Monroe disputing an earlier letter Frenchko had read from the mother of a Trumbull County jail inmate criticizing care in the jail.

As sheriff, Monroe oversees jail operations.

Frenchko hopes to prove the commissioners and Monroe conspired to have her arrested.

"The jury could find that, when Commissioner Fuda called, 'Wix,' he did so as part of a pre-arranged plan that Sgts. Wix and Ross carried out," the ruling states.

Monroe texted a news reporter prior to Frenchko's arrest and again within minutes after the arrest even though he was not at the meeting.

"A jury could find that this fact evidences his participation in a scheme," the court document states. "Of course, a jury might not find a conspiracy based on these facts."

STATUTORY IMMUNITY

The court opinion notes a jury, based on evidence it receives, could find that some or all of the defendants do not qualify for statutory immunity.

"A jury could find that the arrest was the result not of 'an ad hoc, on-the-spot decision by an individual officer' but instead of 'the government itself orchestrat(ing) the retaliation," the document indicates, citing case law. "In that case, the entity defendants -- Trumbull County, the board of commissioners, or the Sheriff's Department -- could well be liable for the arrest under federal law."

The opinion states a jury could find that individual defendants acted with malice, which could lead to the award of punitive damages.

Of course, a jury might not make that finding," the document adds. "Still, it is the jury's prerogative to make that determination on the record presented."

Against the claim of an underlying conspiracy, the defendants argue there was no underlying unlawful act; there was no plan to arrest Frenchko, and the intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine bars liability.

"The facts leave no room for doubt that Commissioner Frenchko suffered a false arrest" the court document noted.

The judge ruled a jury should determine whether a plan existed to arrest Frenchko before she was taken into custody.

NO EVIDENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE

Calabrese also wrote there was no evidence to show probable cause to arrest Frenchko based on her First Amendment protected right to speak, even though she was repeatedly told not to interrupt the commissioners clerk as she read a letter from Monroe.

"In the context of a sitting commissioner speaking on a matter of public concern in a public meeting convened for this purpose, the decision to arrest was not constitutionally reasonable," the judge wrote.

The court also ruled Cantalamessa and Fuda could not use the defense of qualified immunity.

Fuda did not rule Frenchko out of order and admitted that he did not make that determination, according to the court document.

"If someone interrupts in a manner that the sheriff feels is a bad situation, it is up to the sheriff to decide to make an arrest -- it is not up to the commissioners," Calabrese said in the opinion.

Fuda, reached by phone Wednesday, declined to comment on the matter.

Cantalamessa could not be reached for comment.

According to the court filing, Frenchko was required to prove that the arresting officers lacked probable cause to make the arrest.

To determine whether the two sheriff's deputies had probable cause to arrest Frenchko, they needed to have objectively reasonable grounds to believe she obstructed or interfered with a meeting with the purpose to prevent or disrupt it.

At the time of her arrest, Frenchko was speaking to her official capacity about matters of public concern, according to the court document.

"The record leaves no doubt that plaintiff satisfies the elements of false imprisonment," the court document states. "The record entitles her to a summary judgment of the claim."

OTHER CLAIMS

Frenchko's legal team did not prove malicious prosecution because Ross did not initiate the legal process the day after the arrest when he filed a criminal complaint at the municipal court.

"By then, however, Commissioner Frenchko had been released from custody -- she was released hours after her arrest -- and not retained again," the ruling states.

Therefore, according to the court document, the two sergeants were provided summary judgment against Frenchko's claim of malicious prosecution.

The court document noted Monroe did not take possession of Frenchko's cellphone during a separate March 2023 commissioners meeting when he knocked it over.

The court noted Monroe never took possession of the phone, nor was the phone out of Frenchko's possession for more than a few seconds.

Frenchko also claimed in the suit that Wix committed battery against her when he moved her chair backward to encourage her to stand during her 2022 arrest. That was disproven, according to the court document.

Betras is adamant the defendants in this case violated her First and Fourth Amendment rights.

"I want these people to be held responsible for their malicious and unconstitutional acts. I want to seek justice for my client," Betras said.

A message left for the attorney representing the county officials was not returned.