Klosterman v. Konza, LLC. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
JOHN KLOSTERMAN, 	Case No. 1:25-cv-312
Plaintiff, 	Dlott, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.
vs.
KONZA, LLC, et al., 	REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION1
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s “motion for extension of time to serve
defendants Angel Strunk and Joseph Lentine, or alternatively, to find service complete based on
actual knowledge.” (Doc. 76). For the reasons that follow, the motion should be denied because
(1) the amended complaint fails to state a malicious prosecution claim against Strunk and
Lentine, and (2) the Court has recently dismissed the remaining claims in the amended complaint
such that leave to extend to serve these defendants would be futile.
The background of this case is set forth in the Court’s December 10, 2025 Order granting
the motions to dismiss of defendants Keller Williams Realty; the City of Cincinnati and Terry
James; and Konza, LLC, Richard Boydston, and Dentons Bingham Greenebaum LLP. (Doc.
89). Plaintiff asserts ten causes of action in the amended complaint, seven of which are brought
against defendants Strunk and Lentine:
Count I: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) Violation (18
U.S.C. § 1962(c)) against all defendants;
Count II: RICO Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)) against all defendants;
1 As the denial of plaintiff’s “motion for extension of time to serve defendants Angel Strunk and Joseph Lentine, or
alternatively, to find service complete based on actual knowledge” results in a dispositive ruling on his claims against
defendants Strunk and Lentine, the undersigned issues a Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
Case: 1:25-cv-00312-SJD-KLL Doc #: 94 Filed: 12/17/25 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Count III: Civil Rights Conspiracy (42 U.S.C. § 1985) against all defendants;
Count V: Conversion against all defendants;
Count VI: Fraud against all defendants;
Count VIII: Malicious Prosecution against Joseph Lentine; Angel Strunk, and
Richard Boydston;
Count X: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress against all defendants.
(Doc. 33 at PAGEID 369-371). The amended complaint alleges that defendant Lentine testified
during the state court foreclosure and receivership action (Doc. 33 at PAGEID 365, ¶ 11) and
participated in the “criminal enterprise” forming the basis of plaintiff’s RICO claims (Id. at
PAGEID 368, ¶ 32). The amended complaint also alleges that defendants Strunk and Lentine
initiated criminal proceedings against plaintiff by filing “false” police reports alleging plaintiff
stalked them on September 17, 2021. Plaintiff states these “false” reports resulted in his criminal
prosecution and “wrongful imprisonment for nearly one year.” (Doc. 33 at PAGEID 367).
A claim for malicious prosecution under the Fourth Amendment “‘requires the plaintiff to
show a favorable termination of the underlying criminal case against him,’ and the wrongful
initiation of charges without probable cause resulting in a seizure.” 	Susselman v. Washtenaw
Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 109 F.4th 864, 870 (6th Cir. 2024), cert. denied sub nom. Susselman v.
Washtenaw Cnty. Sheriff 's Off., 145 S. Ct. 1901 (2025) (quoting Thompson v. Clark, 596 U.S.
36, 43-44 (2022)). “‘To demonstrate a favorable termination of a criminal prosecution’ in
satisfaction of the claim’s final element, ‘a plaintiff need only show that his prosecution ended
without a conviction.’” Monson v. City of Detroit, Michigan, No. 22-2050, 2024 WL 84093, at
*6 (6th Cir. Jan. 8, 2024), cert. denied sub nom. Ghougoian v. Monson, 144 S. Ct. 2659 (2024)
(quoting Thompson, 596 U.S. at 39). The amended complaint fails to allege that plaintiff’s
Case: 1:25-cv-00312-SJD-KLL Doc #: 94 Filed: 12/17/25 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
prosecution ended without a conviction. In fact, plaintiff admits he was convicted and
imprisoned, and the amended complaint contains no other allegations showing a favorable
termination of his criminal prosecution. Therefore, the amended complaint fails to state a claim
under the Fourth Amendment. To the extent plaintiff alleges a malicious prosecution claim
under state law, the amended complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief for the reasons
set forth in the Court’s December 10, 2025 Order. (Doc. 89 at PAGEID 17-18). Accordingly,
the amended complaint fails to state a malicious prosecution claim against Strunk and Lentine
In addition, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s December 10, 2025 Order granting the
motions to dismiss of the other defendants, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction under the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine over the claims related to the state court foreclosure proceedings;
plaintiff has no standing to sue based on the 621 Delhi Avenue “fraudulent” condemnation
proceedings; the amended complaint fails to state a RICO claim; the § 1985 claims are time-
barred; and the state law claims fail as a matter of law. (Doc. 89). Therefore, granting plaintiff
an extension of time to serve defendants Strunk and Lentine would be futile as the claims against
them would nevertheless be subject to dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
For these reasons, plaintiff’s “motion for extension of time to serve defendants Angel
Strunk and Joseph Lentine, or alternatively, to find service complete based on actual knowledge”
(Doc. 76) should be DENIED.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
Date:____________ 	_________________________
Karen L. Litkovitz
United States Magistrate Judge
12/17/2025
Case: 1:25-cv-00312-SJD-KLL Doc #: 94 Filed: 12/17/25 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
JOHN KLOSTERMAN, 	Case No. 1:25-cv-312
Plaintiff, 	Dlott, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.
vs.
KONZA, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of
the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed
findings and recommendations. 	This period may be extended further by the Court on timely
motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected to and
shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. 	If the Report and
Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the record at an oral
hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such
portions of it as all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the
assigned District Judge otherwise directs. 	A party may respond to another party’s objections
WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. 	Failure to make objections in
accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. 	See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
Case: 1:25-cv-00312-SJD-KLL Doc #: 94 Filed: 12/17/25 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>