Sunshine Law Case Against Hilliard City Council Ends in Dismissal

Plaintiff resource constraints cited, re-filing still possible

[Editor’s Correction - A previous version of this story incorrectly identified Ms. Carrier as an attorney, while she is currently pursuing her law degree]

A civil case filed in May 2023 against the city of Hilliard and individual members of Hilliard City Council was dismissed in November from the Franklin County Common Pleas Court at the request of Molly Carrier, who initiated the complaint.

Carrier, a second year law student at Capital University and a Hilliard resident, said she asked for the dismissal of the case stating she felt she did not have the resources to continue pursuing the complaint that originated from allegations that Hilliard City Council had violated Ohio’s Sunshine Law.

According to Common Pleas Courts records, Molly Carrier on Nov. 12, filed a motion with the Court to “voluntarily dismiss without prejudice” the civil complaint she initiated in May 2023, thus terminating the case.

Thad Boggs, attorney for the City of Hilliard, and those representing the five council members that were named in complaint were also notified, according to the Court records.

The case was before Common Pleas Court Judge Mark Serrott.

Serrott denied the city’s request to dismiss the civil complaint in May 2024 but signaled that the Court was skeptical that Carrier could prove the allegations set out in the civil complaint.

In the judgment entry, issued May 9, 2024, Serrott wrote, “The Court doubts that Relator’s complaint survives summary judgment. This case is in effect, much ado about nothing,” but goes on to say that after consideration of the applicable legal standards concerning the four counts in the original complaint, that the Court will “overrule the motion” by the defendant (the city of Hilliard) to dismiss it.

A Court cannot grant a motion to dismiss unless “it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts to support the claim,” and continues “the Court has serious reservations that the email allegations were pre-arranged and that there was a deliberate majority of council, but in the abundance of caution, accepts as true the Relator’s conclusory allegations.”

“The Court is certainly skeptical of my position, arguably even prejudicial, however, they denied the (City’s) motion (to dismiss), so we will move forward with discovery,” Carrier said in May 2024.

Carrier was known as a realtor rather than a plaintiff because she filed a civil complaint on behalf of a party (as opposed for herself) who she alleged was aggrieved, in this case the public whom the Ohio Sunshine Law protects.

The Ohio Sunshine Law, with only a handful of specific, enumerated exceptions such as the discussion of real estate transactions and the hiring or firing of personnel, requires that elected officials meet and discuss the city’s business in public.

Carrier’s civil complaint alleged that the Hilliard City Council did not do so in 2023 when emails were sent among certain council members discussing the language to be used in a public statement of support for Hilliard City Manager Michelle Crandall.

A majority of City Council sought to make a public statement of support for Crandall in May 2023 after dissent within City Council concerning Crandall’s decision in February 2023 to fire then-finance director David Delande.

In May 2023, Molly Carrier’s father, Councilman Les Carrier, publicly questioned who had seen drafts of the language among other council members prior to City Council acting to issue the statement of support on May 8.

Molly Carrier filed the civil complaint on May 19, 2023.

She included exhibits of emails among five council members that included discussions of a “statement of support” for Crandall and preferred language for doing so.

Those five members- Tina Cottone, Peggy Hale, Andy Teater, Cynthia Vermillion, and former councilman Pete Marsh- had been named individually in the civil complaint.

The civil case had allowed only a fine of $500 if the court found in favor of the relator but fines could have been levied for each individual violation.

By asking to have the complaint dismissed without prejudice, Carrier, or even another realtor, could re-file the complaint.