Guernsey County Court Dismisses Defamation Suit Under Ohio’s New Anti SLAPP Law

Guernsey County Court Dismisses Defamation Suit Under Ohio’s New Anti-SLAPP Law; Court Sets Fee Hearing for Prevailing Defendant

Believed to be the first Ohio decision applying the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UP-EPA)

CAMBRIDGE, OH — October 20, 2025. The Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas today granted Maegin Lee George’s motion for expedited relief under Ohio’s new anti-SLAPP statute and dismissed all claims brought against her, finding the lawsuit targeted speech on matters of public concern and failed as a matter of law. The Court will hold a separate hearing to award Ms. George her reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, and litigation expenses as mandated by R.C. 2747.05(A).

“Today’s ruling is a milestone for free speech in Ohio,” said Austin Warehime, counsel for Ms. George. “The Court applied UPEPA exactly as the General Assembly intended—swiftly dismissing meritless claims aimed at silencing protected expression and ensuring fee shifting so defendants aren’t punished by the process.”

Why this decision matters

• First-of-its-kind application (as far as counsel is aware). Ohio’s UPEPA took effect April 9, 2025; today’s order appears to be the first Ohio trial court decision applying the statute’s expedited dismissal and fee-shifting framework.

• Text and purpose, not technicalities. The Court rejected an argument that Ohio’s enactment requires a speaker to simultaneously exercise multiple First Amendment rights before the statute applies. Reading Chapter 2747 as a whole and in light of the Act’s broad construction clause, the Court found that approach “is not consistent with the provisions of Chapter 2747 and the legislative intent.”

• Public concern finding. Looking to the “content, form, and context” of the challenged statements, the Court held that allegations involving sexual solicitation and potential risk to a minor qualify as matters of public concern—triggering UPEPA’s protections.

• Mandatory fee shifting. Having granted expedited relief, the Court set a separate hearing to award Ms. George her reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and other litigation expenses, in keeping with the statute’s mandatory fee provision.

Mr. Warehime added: “The fee provision is not a footnote—it’s the backbone. When defendants win an anti-SLAPP motion, the law requires that they be made whole. That’s how the statute deters abusive filings in the first place.”

The ruling at a glance

In a written Entry (Case No. 25 CV 167), Judge Daniel G. Padden granted Ms. George’s Motion for Expedited Relief and dismissed the complaint after applying the three-phase analysis codified in R.C. 2747.04(C): coverage, exemptions, and legal/factual sufficiency. The Court concluded:

• Coverage (Phase One). The claims were “based on” Ms. George’s exercise of protected expression on a matter of public concern.

• Exemptions. None of the statutory exceptions in R.C. 2747.01(C) applied.

• Legal/factual sufficiency.

o Defamation (per quod). The complaint did not plead the required special damages.

o Defamation (per se). Affidavits from the alleged listeners stated the challenged words were never spoken; no contrary evidence was presented.

o Tortious interference. No specific deal, contract, or identifiable expectancy—and no causal link—was alleged or supported.

o IIED. No facts showing “extreme and outrageous” conduct or severe, debilitating distress.

Having found no genuine issues of material fact and multiple independent legal deficiencies, the Court dismissed the action under Chapter 2747 and set a separate fee hearing.

“UPEPA is designed to stop the punishment by process that SLAPPs inflict,” Warehime said. “The Court’s order sends a clear signal: Ohio courts will move quickly, protect participation in public debate, and apply the statute’s teeth.”

Factual background of the lawsuit

Filed April 28, 2025, the complaint alleged that Ms. George made statements accusing the plaintiff of pedophilia and incest and later claimed the plaintiff offered her money for sex; the pleading asserted counts for defamation, tortious interference with a business expectancy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Ms. George denied making the alleged slurs, and the Court credited affidavits from the only identified listeners stating they never heard such accusations. The Court also noted that a question posed during a “life coach” session—using “could be” phrasing—was neither clear nor unambiguous and did not constitute per se defamation.

Ohio’s new Anti SLAPP framework (UPEPA)

Ohio enacted UPEPA in 2025 to deter meritless suits that target speech, petitioning, and association—by staying discovery, requiring prompt hearings, authorizing dismissal with prejudice when statutory conditions are met, and mandating a fee award to a prevailing movant. The Court expressly recognized the statute’s broad construction directive and applied the coverage provision grounded in “matters of public concern.”

Case information & contacts

• Caption: Jonathan George v. Maegin Lee George, Case No. 25 CV 167 (Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas; Judge Daniel G. Padden).

• Key filings: Motion for Expedited Relief (June 27, 2025); Plaintiff’s Opposition (Aug. 12, 2025); Reply (Aug. 20, 2025); Court Entry (Oct. 20, 2025).

• Defense counsel: Austin T. Warehime and Hunter Legeza, Eques, Inc., 1279 Southgate Parkway, Cambridge, OH 43725; P: 740 872 0229; atw@eques.law.

• Media contact: Attorney Austin T. Warehime

About UPEPA in Ohio. UPEPA is codified at R.C. 2747.01–.06 and is to be broadly construed to protect the exercise of free speech, the press, petition, and association, including mandatory fee shifting for prevailing movants.