MILANO PASCH MEDICI Attorneys & Counsetors at Law David Furry December 28, 2012 3867 W. 226" Street Fairview Park, Ohio 44121 Mr, Furry, ‘My firm represents Michael Lograsso, the Law Director for the City of South Euclid, Attached is a copy of a complaint filed against you today at the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. Mr. Lograsso maintains that you have defamed him and intentionally placed him ina false public light. Any further action on your part will be subject to additional civil action, Mr, Lograsso therefore asks that you immediately cease and desist from any and all such actions against him. Ifyou have any questions please contact my office. Respectfully, Tee Medici 2639 Wooster Roa + Rocky River, OHi0 44116 - 2911 ‘et 440.356.2828 - vax 440.356.2873 + www AuLanoLawcomIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS: CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO MICHAEL P. LOGRASSO 6245 KENARDEN DRIVE HIGHLAND HEIGHTS, OH 44143 CASE NO: PLAINTIFF JUDGE: COMPLAINT & JURY DEMAND vs. ROBERT FREY 1299 SOUTH GREEN ROAD SOUTH EUCLID, OH 44121 EMILIE DiFRANCO 3867 W. 226" STREET FAIRVIEW PARK, OH 44126 AND DAVID FURRY 3867 W. 226" STREET ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 ) ) 2 ) AND ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FAIRVIEW PARK, OH 44126 ) ) ) DEFENDANTSNow comes the Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, and hereby states his complaint: JURISDICTION/VENUE 1, Plaintiff Michael Lograsso, is a full-time Cuyahoga County residents and has lived in the City of Highland Heights throughout the period subject to this ‘complaint. ‘Atall times herein, Plaintiff Michael Lograsso has been employed as the Law Director for the City of South Euclid in Cuyahoga County, Obio. 3, Defendant Robert Frey is a full-time Cuyahoga County resident with a primary residence in South Euclid. 4, Defendants DiFranco and Furry are full time Cuyahoga County residents, with primary residence in Fairview Park. FACTS 5, Plaintiff realledges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-4, 6 Onoraround October 17, 2012, Defendant Emilie DiFranco filed a grievance packet with the Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio regarding Plaintiff Michael Lograsso 7. Inthe packet, Defendant DiFranco requested for the Disciplinary Counsel to review Mr. Lograsso’s fitness to continue practicing law in the State of Ohio and falsely cited ‘possible violations of the Ohio rules of Professional Conduct” against Mr. Lograsso.10, i. 2 1B. 14. 15. In the packet, Defendant DiFranco falsely stated Mr. Lograsso engaged in, “illegal conduct (that) reflect adversely on fitness to practice law, such offenses involving fraud and the offense of willful failure to file an income tax return.” In the packet to the Disciplinary Counsel, Defendant Diftranco falsely accused “Mr. Lograsso of “failing to file necessary corporate franchise tax reports or pay any such taxes within the time deseribed by the law.’ In the packet, Defendant DiFranco cited several corporations that had delinquent taxes and claimed that ‘Mr. Lograsso had an ownership interest in the companies. In fact, the corporations referenced by Defendant DiFranco were businesses that Mr, Lograsso facilitated in creating for clients through his private law practice over the last 20 years. Ato time did Mr. Lograsso have any ownership interest in any of the companies described by Defendant DiFranco. (On or around October 22, 2012, Defendant Robert Frey attended a City of South Euclid City Council meeting, Plaintiff Michael Lograsso was present at that meeting in his eapacity as the Law Director for the City of South Euclid. During the public meeting, Defendant Frey addressed the Council, the Mayor, other department heads and members of the general public. During his remarks, Defendant Frey referenced a proposed charter amendment to the City’s Charter that would allow City Couneil members to approve the Mayor's appointment of the Director of Law. ‘During his statement, Defendant Frey questioned Councilman Ed Ieove about why he did not address issues regarding Plaintiff Michael Lograsso’s position as16, 7. 18, 19. 20. 24 22. Law Director. Defendant Frey also stated that Mr. Lograsso’s resume was not adequate for the position of Law Director. ‘At the meeting, Defendant Frey produced several documents that he referenced during his address. Defendant Frey stated that the papers showed that Mr. Lograsso was an incorporator and investor in several Ohio corporations that were delinquent in paying taxes. The corporations referenced were the same corporations noted in Defendant DiFranco’s Disciplinary Counsel packet, Defendant Frey publicly inferred that it was Mr. Lograsso’s responsibility to pay the delinquent taxes and that it was Mr. Lograsso’s fault that the taxes had not been paid. ‘Atno time did Mr. Lograsso have any ownership interest in any of the companies described by Defendant Frey. Defendants DiFranco and Furry were also present at the Council meeting on or around October 22, 2012 and Defendant Furry videotaped the meeting, specifically the speech made by Defendant Frey. Defendants DiFranco and Furry are the owners and operators of a website called, “South Euclid Oversight.” Subsequent to the City Council meeting, Defendants DiFranco and Furry published video from the Couneil meeting onto Youtube.com and onto the South Euclid Oversight website, On or around November 12, 2012, Defendants Frey, DiFranco and Furry again attended a City of South Euclid Council meeting.23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. ‘Again Defendant Frey addressed Council and members of the public and again he made false and harmful comments towards Mr. Lograsso. During his address, Defendant Frey specifically stated that the City Council needed to adopt laws prohibiting the City from employing persons with “questionable financial histories.” Defendant Frey specifically stated that Mr. Lograsso has several such financial irregularities. At the meeting, Defendant Frey insinuated that Mr. Lograsso only became the Law Director because of political cronyism. ‘At the meeting Defendant Frey again referenced the Charter Amendment giving power to the City Council to review the Mayor's hiring of the Law Direetor. In relation to that legislation, Defendant Frey stated the City Council needs to review financial issues and fraud when reviewing someone in that position, clearly and falsely inferring that Mr. Lograsso had committed fraud. Defendant Frey additionally waived a packet of documents in the air proclaiming that he had documentation proving all of the accusations he made against Mr. Lograsso at the October 2012 City Council meeting. Defendant Furry again videotaped Defendant Frey's address during the Council meeting. Defendant Furry and Defendant DiFranco, published the comments on ‘Youtube.com and on the South Euclid Oversight website. COUNT 1: DEFAMATION Plaintiff realledges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-29.31. Defendants made false and defamatory statements that concerned and injured the Plaintiff. 32. ‘The statements made by the Defendants were published through a government disciplinary panel, an open forum and through two separate public websites. 33. The statements made and published by the Defendants were per-se and per-quod defamatory, 34. The statements made and published by the Defendants were made with malice and intended to injure the Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, jointly and. severally, and hereby seeks a public apology correcting all defamatory statements and implications and damages in an amount in excess of ‘Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), together with costs herein occurred, prejudgment interest and whatever relief this Court deems just and equitable. COUNT 2: PUBLICITY PLACING PERSON IN FALSE LIGHT 35. Plaintiff realledges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-34, 36. Defendants repeatedly placed Plaintiff in a public false light through false disciplinary complaints, public forums and public websites, 37. Defendants acted with malice and complete reckless disregard toward Plaintiff and toward the veracity and truth of their statements and accusations. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, and hereby secks a public apology correcting all false light statements and implications and damages in an amount in excess of Twenty Five Thousand Dollars(825,000.00), together with costs herein occurred, prejudgment interest and whatever relief this Court deems just and eguitable. COUNT, "UNITIVE DAMAGES 38. Plaintiff realledges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-37. 39, Defendants acted recklessly and wantonly and with actual malice towards Plaintiff. 40, The conduct of the Defendants demonstrated a conscious disregard for the well being, rights and safety of the Plaintiff with a great probability that said conduct, ‘would proximately cause substantial harm to Plaintiff. 4. Plaintiff has suffered significant mental anguish, stress, humiliation and duress due to the malicious and intentional actions of the Defendants, WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, and hereby seeks punitive damages on all claims in excess of Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), together with costs herein occurred, prejudgment interest, reasonable attorney fees and whatever relief this Court deems just and equitable. SURY DEMAND A Jury is hereby demanded. Respectfully submitted, Milano Pasch Medjci Attorneys at Law 2639 Wooster Road Rocky River, Ohio 44116-2911 P- 440-356-3126 F- 216-539-5955 email: jrm@milanolaw.com