Background
The parties met in 2018 and had a brief dating relationship. After it ended, Alby Wu made allegations of sexual assault against Craig Blair Park; Park was never indicted. In 2020, Park obtained a civil dating-violence protection order against Wu based on her stalking conduct, and Wu signed a no-contact consent agreement adopted as a court order for five years. The parties then exchanged a succession of lawsuits in Delaware and Franklin Counties over several years, ultimately agreeing in March 2022 to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice.
Wu continued to litigate. She obtained a Franklin County ex parte civil stalking protection order against Park in March 2022, reported multiple alleged violations to law enforcement, and then in 2024 refiled claims in Delaware County alleging Park committed criminal acts—including violating the ex parte order and aggravated menacing—that gave rise to civil liability under R.C. 2307.60. She also filed a separate 2024 complaint reviving her sexual assault-based R.C. 2307.60 claims. Park filed counterclaims alleging spoliation of evidence (Wu sold her cellphone before forensic examination), falsification, and violation of the no-contact order.
Following consolidation of the two 2024 cases, an August 2025 jury trial resulted in a complete defense verdict on Wu’s claims and a verdict for Park on his counterclaims. The jury awarded Park $35,000 in compensatory damages and punitive damages that were ultimately reduced by the trial court to $50,000; a magistrate also awarded Park $191,003.38 in attorney fees and costs (reduced by $1,455 on objection). Wu appealed, raising ten assignments of error.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed across the board. On Assignment I, the court held that Wu’s no-contact/consent agreement, entered under R.C. 3113.31, was fully enforceable as a “consent agreement” under R.C. 2919.27, so the trial court properly denied Wu’s Civ.R. 12(C) motion seeking dismissal of Park’s counterclaim for civil liability for violating it. On Assignments II and III, the court held that res judicata barred Wu’s 2024 sexual-assault-based R.C. 2307.60 claims: the March 2022 voluntary dismissal with prejudice in the prior case was a final judgment on the merits involving the same parties, the same claims, and the same underlying facts. Wu’s argument that a 2022 statutory change extending the limitations period to six years created an exception to res judicata was rejected—under National Amusements v. City of Springdale, a change in law does not ordinarily remove the bar of res judicata.
On Assignments IV and V (denial of Wu’s summary judgment motions on Park’s falsification and spoliation counterclaims), the court found both assignments moot because the claims went to a full jury trial and the jury found for Park, rendering any pre-trial summary judgment error harmless under Continental Ins. Co. v. Whittington. On Assignments VI and VII (denial of JNOV), the court found sufficient evidence to support both the R.C. 2307.60 violation verdict and the spoliation verdict, noting that Wu had sold her cellphone before responding to Park’s discovery request and that an eBay listing showed the phone remained for sale—with seller revisions—after Wu claimed to have sold it, giving the jury ample basis to find willful destruction of evidence. On Assignment VIII (new trial), the court rejected Wu’s challenges to the cellphone expert’s testimony, the trial court’s limits on cross-examination regarding alleged violence and Park’s alibi witness, and the jury instructions.
Key Takeaways
- A no-contact consent agreement entered and approved under R.C. 3113.31 qualifies as a “consent agreement” enforceable under R.C. 2919.27’s criminal-violation provision, and a party who signed it cannot escape civil counterclaims by arguing the document was merely a consent agreement rather than a protection order.
- A voluntary dismissal with prejudice is an adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes, and a subsequent statutory change expanding a limitations period does not revive claims already extinguished by that dismissal, absent a narrow recognized exception.
- Any trial court error in denying a pre-trial summary judgment motion is rendered moot when the same issues are subsequently resolved by a jury verdict against the movant; appellate courts will not revisit the pre-trial ruling in that posture.
- Spoliation may be established by circumstantial evidence: evidence that a litigant refused a discovery request for a device, claimed to have sold it to an unknown buyer, yet had a live eBay listing with seller-made revisions months later was sufficient to sustain a jury verdict.
Why It Matters
Wu v. Park is a notable example of litigation that turned against a plaintiff who accumulated seven years of filings and multiple reopened suits only to face a substantial damages award—compensatory damages, punitive damages, and nearly $190,000 in attorney fees—on her former partner’s counterclaims. The decision reinforces that res judicata applies with full force even when a party voluntarily dismissed with prejudice for personal reasons and later perceives a legal advantage from a change in law, protecting defendants from indefinitely relitigated disputes.
The spoliation ruling also highlights the evidentiary peril of failing to preserve electronic evidence once litigation is anticipated. The court’s confirmation that eBay listing metadata constituted sufficient evidence of willful destruction—despite Wu’s explanation that she did not understand how to mark items as sold—underscores that courts and juries will scrutinize the digital record when a litigant’s story about destroying a key device does not line up with that record.