Trending
Ruling it was filed too late, a federal judge didn't permit the attorney for Tod Latell, the former Trumbull County recorder, to amend his lawsuit against Trumbull County's current recorder, Dawn Zinni-Hanni, and her husband, 7th District Court of Appeals Judge Mark A. Hanni.
George Farneth, Latell's attorney, filed an amended complaint on July 10.
The lawsuit was initially filed April 22 by Farneth, on behalf of Latell, a Democrat, against the county, Zinni-Hanni and Hanni, both Republicans, alleging civil conspiracy, defamation and abuse of political authority or influence.
Sarah Chiappone of the Cleveland law firm of Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder Co., which is representing the county and Zinni-Hanni in this case, filed a July 21 motion contending Latell's amended complaint was untimely and should be tossed.
U.S. Court Judge Benita Y. Pearson, who is overseeing the case, ruled Friday that Chiappone's arguments were valid and rejected the amended complaint.
Pearson wrote in her decision that a plaintiff is permitted to amend a complaint once without judicial permission within 21 days of service of the complaint or service of a responsive pleading or motion to dismiss.
Pearson wrote: "The first opportunity closed over two months ago before the filing of the amended complaint on July 10 -- 14 days after defendant Hanni moved to dismiss and well within (a judicial rule's) 21-day window. But he filed it 24 days after defendants Zinni-Hanni and Trumbull County answered -- three days after the window closed."
Latell's attorney could have filed an amended complaint until July 7, and his failure "violates the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure," Pearson wrote.
The amended complaint added more than 20 paragraphs to the initial complaint, labeled as "background facts as to Zinni and Hanni," including lawsuits filed against Zinni-Hanni, including a judgment against her of $102,759, as well as her filing for bankruptcy after the 2024 election and a lawsuit against the Tribune Chronicle that detailed her financial issues and was dismissed in court.
Farneth wrote the information demonstrates "a pattern of conduct by Zinni and Hanni that includes believing the laws do not apply to them and that blame, diversion and obfuscation for their own shortcomings and general lack of empathy are to be politically rewarded when they, in fact, form the foundation of the character that led to the tortious harm (Latell) has suffered at their hands."
In a Monday filing, Farneth wrote the amended complaint would have been "timely, but for the staggered extensions of time that were granted to the defendants, which ended up making the filing of the first amended complaint three days late. The late filing was not intentional, but rather was the result of an honest, inadvertent miscalculation of the deadline. It is the very 'excusable neglect' for which relief of this nature should be granted."
Farneth requested Pearson give him permission to amend the complaint.
Farneth also asked to have until Aug. 21 to respond to Hanni's request to have the case against him dismissed.
Julie M. Pfeiffer, an Ohio Assistant Attorney General representing Hanni, requested June 26 that Pearson dismiss the case against the judge because "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."
On behalf of the county and Zinni-Hanni, Jillian Eckart, another attorney from the Mazanec law firm representing them, requested on June 16 that Pearson dismiss the case against those defendants.
Among the series of defenses listed by Eckart is qualified immunity, a common defense used by governments in Ohio that gives them immunity from liability as a defense in many court cases in which governmental functions are being done.
In addition, Eckart listed Latell failed to "state a private cause of action," the lawsuit is "barred by the applicable statute of limitations" and "barred by the truth of the matter asserted."
Pearson scheduled an Aug. 5 telephone conference call to discuss the management of this case.
LATELL LAWSUIT
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."
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, and vicarious liability by the county.
The defendants deny the allegations in Latell's lawsuit.
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, who was the incumbent.
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."
The lawsuit states suffers "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."