An attorney representing appeals court Judge Mark A. Hanni asked a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed against him by Tod Latell, the former Trumbull County recorder, because the court lacks jurisdiction.

Julie M. Pfeiffer, an Ohio assistant attorney general representing Hanni, wrote: “Latell premises federal jurisdiction over his claims by attempting to transform his allegations into a due process claim for the deprivation of a purported liberty interest to pursue his occupation. Because Latell’s allegations are insufficient to establish a liberty interest, his (violation of civil rights) claim necessarily fails leaving him without a basis for invoking this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The court should, therefore, dismiss his lone federal claim and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all of his state-law claims.”

Latell, a Democrat, filed a nine-count federal lawsuit April 23 against Hanni, a 7th District Court of Appeals Court judge; his wife, Trumbull Recorder Dawn Zinni-Hanni; and Trumbull County alleging civil conspiracy, defamation and abuse of political authority or influence.

Hanni and Zinni-Hanni are both Republicans. The recorder’s race was the closest among any on the November 2024 general election ballot in Trumbull County with Zinni-Hanni winning by 1.2% over Latell.

Latell’s lawsuit states the “claims arise from the intentional, illegal, unlawful, willful, wanton, malicious, outrageous, oppressive, recklessly indifferent and/or negligent conduct of the defendants, individually and collectively, who all acted at least in part under color of state law to deprive plaintiff of his civil and constitutional rights and as part of a conspiracy to destroy plaintiff’s personal and business names and reputations and to cause him to suffer as much economic damage and other harm as they could and eliminate him as a potential political opponent to defendant, Dawn Zinni-Hanni in the next election.”

Jillian Eckart, an attorney representing the county and Zinni-Hanni, filed a response June 16 to Latell’s lawsuit, seeking its dismissal on various grounds with U.S. Court Judge Benita Y. Pearson, who is overseeing the case.

Pfeiffer listed defenses in a Friday filing, including the court lacking jurisdiction over the claims, judicial immunity, qualified immunity, Latell’s failure to support a federal due process claim and because of that, the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

Hanni is being represented in this case by the Ohio Attorney General’s Office in this case, which represents the state, its officers and employees in litigation before state and federal courts.

Pfeiffer wrote: “Latell’s claims against Hanni must be dismissed for several reasons. First, all claims against Hanni in his official capacity as a judge on the Ohio 7th District Court of Appeals are barred by the 11th Amendment and this court, therefore, lacks jurisdiction over these claims. Second, Latell has failed to sufficient allege a liberty or property interest to support his (violation of civil rights) claim as set forth in Count I. And third, the court should decline to exercise supplement jurisdiction over Latell’s state law claims after dismissing Count I, the only claim over which this court has original jurisdiction.”

Hanni and Zinni-Hanni deny the allegations in Latell’s lawsuit.

Pearson scheduled an Aug. 5 telephone conference call to discuss the management of this case.

Latell’s lawsuit contends Zinni-Hanni and Hanni violated laws “relating to abuse of political authority or influence” and their conduct “demands that they immediately be removed from their respective offices.” Latell sued them as individuals and in their official capacities.

The lawsuit states that Latell suffers and continues to suffer “severe, serious and potentially permanent injuries, damages, losses and harm,” including “anxiety, depression, embarrassment, humiliation, emotional distress, mental anguish, psychological trauma, inconvenience and a loss of life’s pleasures,” as well as a violation of his constitutional rights, an invasion of privacy and “a substantial loss of income.”

Zinni-Hanni sent a statement to the media on Jan. 8 along with a letter requesting the state auditor conduct an investigation into the alleged misconduct of Latell and Document Technology Systems, which provides and supports the recorder’s office’s software system.

Latell, who served eight years as county recorder, went to work for DTS after losing the November 2024 election to Zinni-Hanni.

State Auditor Keith Faber’s office reviewed the claims and determined it didn’t meet the criteria for an investigation.

DTS hired Latell on Feb. 1, 2025, as an outside sales representative and project manager with no business-related contact with any Trumbull County officials except for one very limited call, according to the lawsuit.

In Zinni-Hanni’s letter to Faber, she wrote that by selecting DTS for records software at the recorder’s office, Latell violated state law prohibiting former public officials from profiting from or representing interests tied to contracts they approved or influenced.

Latell’s lawsuit accused Hanni of helping write the Jan. 8 letter to the media. Pfeiffer wrote Hanni “denies that he aided and abetted in the preparation of a letter to the auditor of state.”

Zinni-Hanni contends after beating Latell that he demanded to be hired for a union-protected $100,000 annually salary job in exchange for agreeing not to run against him. She called it an attempt to “bully and pressure me into hiring him.”

The allegations by Latell in the lawsuit include abuse of political authority or influence against Hanni and Zinni-Hanni, civil conspiracy by the two, intentional infliction of emotional distress by the two, defamation by the two and Trumbull County, false-light invasion of privacy by all three, tortious interference with employment relationship by all three, violation of civil rights by all three, and vicarious liability by the county.

Latell requested in excess $75,000 in compensatory damages for each of the nine counts as well as punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and other relief deemed appropriate by the court.