Are we dating the same vexatious litigator whose files cite nonexistent cases?

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

(D)two 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 their representation of their clients…. Additionally, respondents subsequently responded to the complaint and filed a joint counterclaim to declare Souders a vexatious litigant under RC 2323.52….

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

After Lazor and Souders met on a dating app and began talking, Lazor posted Souders’ photo “to a community of local women” to gather background information about 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 using a fake profile. Simultaneously, Souders sent a cease-and-desist letter to Lazor’s home, demanding that she remove the post about him.

Concerned about her personal safety and how Souders knew her address, Lazor filed for a Civil Harassment Protection Order (“CSPO”) in Warren County where she resides. Shortly thereafter, Souders initiated Hamilton County’s first 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 article. -EV) Afterward, Souder initiated instant action.

The substance of the motion for summary judgment contended that Souders engaged in conduct intended to harass or maliciously harm the defendants in the Hamilton County actions, including causing the defendants to “expend significant time, money and effort to fight his frivolous litigation” and asserting derogatory allegations against the defendants that were entirely irrelevant. in relation to his claims. The motion further asserted that Souders’ claims were unjustified and had no bona fide legal basis, and asserted that Souders had consistently sought the same relief, regardless of prior rulings.

The motion also referenced other cases, outside of this case, to show that Souders “has a long history of unnecessarily and unnecessarily complicating other cases.” …

The trial court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of respondents and declared Souders a vexatious litigant. …The court (concluded) that Souders “filed several motions and briefs that include statements entirely unrelated to this lawsuit and repeatedly reaffirm issues that this Court has already decided.” The court noted that more than 13 pages of his response opposing summary judgment focused on challenging the court’s dismissal of his claims, rather than on the motion for summary judgment.

Additionally, the court found that Souders used “incomplete, incorrect, irrelevant” or nonexistent legal citations in his motion for reconsideration of the court’s dismissal of his complaint and requested findings of fact and conclusions of law when doing so was not warranted under the statute or done in good faith under existing law.

Additionally, the court found that Souders’ conduct “serves to maliciously harass or harm Defendants,” in which he made irrelevant statements against Defendants, such as stating that certain Defendants had expressed a desire to have intimate sexual relations with him, attempted to solicit him to purchase a subscription to his OnlyFans account, or were suffering from a mental illness….

Souders argued on appeal that the trial court wrongly characterized him as a “vexatious litigant,” which “violates his First Amendment right to ‘seek redress of grievances’:

In support of this argument, he cites “White versus GainerNo. 06-C-367, 2007 US Dist. LEXIS 27813, at *19 (ND Ill. April 9, 2007). “However, this case does not exist.

Nevertheless, in Deter v. Briggs1998, Ohio application. LEXIS 6419 (1st Dist. Dec. 31, 1998), this court considered a First Amendment challenge to RC 2323.52 (the Queer Litigants Act). Recognizing the burden that frivolous filings impose on the judicial system and the courts’ inherent power to grant relief against frivolous filings and abuses, this court held that “the First Amendment restriction on activity imposed by RC 2323.52 is constitutionally permitted” because “it furthers an important governmental interest in a reasonable manner.” … RC 2323.52 (“”) is not designed, nor does it operate, to prevent contentious litigants from pursuing their legitimate claims. Instead, it establishes a screening mechanism under which the contentious litigant can ask the declaring court, on a case-by-case basis, to determine whether a proposed action is improper or meritless. (“) …

Beyond that, Souders makes only a conclusive assertion that “the litigation he initiated was neither frivolous in nature nor intended to cause injury or harm to any party.” In doing so, he does not cite the record or advance an argument specifically addressing the trial court’s findings under RC 2323.52, respondents’ motion for summary judgment, or any of its allegations….

Souders fails to explain why the allegations in his complaint were supported by law or why he had reasonable grounds for any of his actions. Instead, Souders simply asserts that he sufficiently pleaded for “unlawful” or “unlawful” conduct. In doing so, the majority of cases he cites to support his argument either do not exist or do not match what he claims. Additionally, he fails to specifically reference a single allegation – out of eleven – in his complaint when presenting his arguments. Beyond that, Souders makes no argument as to the adequacy of respondents’ motion for summary judgment nor does he specifically challenge any of the trial court’s findings under RC 2323.52.…