Epperson v. Covington Madison Corp. , 2021 Ohio 4359 ( 2021 )

[Cite as Epperson v. Covington Madison Corp., 2021-Ohio-4359.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
WARREN COUNTY
CLAYTON EPPERSON, et al., : CASE NO. CA2021-06-057
Appellants, : OPINION
12/13/2021
:
- vs -
:
THE COVINGTON MADISON CORP., :
Appellee. :
CIVIL APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. 21 CV 093964
Kidd & Urling, LLC, and James P. Urling and Thomas Condit, for appellants.
Keating, Muething & Klekamp PLL, and Brian P. Muething, Collin L. Ryan, and Carson E.
Miller, for appellee.
M. POWELL, J.
{¶ 1} Appellants, Clayton Epperson and his wife Emily Epperson, and Emily's
parents, John Peltz and Judith Condit, appeal a decision of the Warren County Court of
Common Pleas dismissing their complaint against appellee, The Covington Madison Corp.
dba The Madison Event Center ("The Madison"), pursuant to the doctrine of forum non
conveniens.
Warren CA2021-06-057
{¶ 2} Clayton and Emily Epperson are residents of Warren County, Ohio; John
Peltz and Judith Condit are residents of Hamilton County, Ohio. The Madison is a Kentucky
corporation that hosts banquets, wedding receptions, and other private events at a facility
in Covington, Kentucky. In 2018, appellants contracted with The Madison to host a wedding
ceremony and reception at its facility on May 22, 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic,
the parties later amended their contract and rescheduled the ceremony and reception for
September 26, 2020.
{¶ 3} During the pertinent time period, the governor of Kentucky issued several
COVID-19 regulations that significantly impacted the operation of Kentucky businesses,
including those hosting wedding events. Among those regulations was a June 29, 2020
"Healthy at Work" regulation that restricted wedding venues to "50% of the maximum
permitted occupancy capacity." Believing that this and subsequent regulations would
prevent The Madison from accommodating the number of guests anticipated for the
wedding reception, appellants sought to cancel their reservation of The Madison's facility
and obtain a refund of what they had paid The Madison. The Madison maintained that it
could host appellants' wedding reception in compliance with the applicable Kentucky
COVID-19 regulations and refused to refund appellants.
{¶ 4} On January 29, 2021, appellants filed a complaint against The Madison in the
Warren County Court of Common Pleas, seeking a declaratory judgment and money
damages for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion. The Madison
answered and then moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis of forum non conveniens,
asserting that Kenton County, Kentucky was a more appropriate forum. On May 24, 2021,
the trial court granted the motion to dismiss.
{¶ 5} Appellants now appeal, raising one assignment of error:
{¶ 6} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
-2-
Warren CA2021-06-057
DISMISS THIS ACTION ON GROUNDS OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS.
{¶ 7} Appellants argue that the trial court erred when it dismissed their complaint
on the basis of forum non conveniens.
{¶ 8} "The doctrine of forum non conveniens permits a court to dismiss an action to
further the ends of justice and to promote the convenience of the parties, even though
jurisdiction and venue are proper in the court chosen by the plaintiff." Calvary Industries,
Inc. v. Coral Chem. Co., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2016-12-233, 2017-Ohio-7279, ¶ 16, citing
Chambers v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 35 Ohio St.3d 123, 125 (1988). A
plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed, particularly when the plaintiff has
chosen his or her home forum. Chambers at 127.
{¶ 9} "In determining whether dismissal on the basis of forum non conveniens is
proper, the trial court must consider the facts of each case, balancing the private interests
of the litigants and the public interest involving the courts and citizens of the forum state."
Cavalry at ¶ 18, citing Chambers at 126-127. Important private interests include (1) the
relative ease of access to sources of proof, (2) availability of compulsory process for
attendance of unwilling witnesses, (3) the cost of obtaining attendance of unwilling
witnesses, (4) the possibility of a view of the premises, if appropriate, and (5) all other
practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive. Chambers
at 126-127. Important public interests include (1) the administrative difficulties and delay to
other litigants caused by congested court calendars, (2) the imposition of jury duty upon the
citizens of a community that has very little relation to the litigation, (3) a local interest in
having localized controversies decided at home, and (4) the appropriateness of litigating a
case in a forum familiar with the applicable law. Id. at 127. All relevant criteria are to be
applied flexibly, with each case turning on its own facts. Id. at 126.
{¶ 10} "The decision whether to grant a motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non
-3-
Warren CA2021-06-057
conveniens rests with the trial court's discretion, the exercise of which an appellate court
may reverse only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion." Calvary, 2017-Ohio-7279 at
¶ 19. "[W]here the [trial] court has considered all relevant public and private interest factors,
and where its balancing of these factors is reasonable, its decision deserves substantial
deference." Chambers, 35 Ohio St.3d at 127. "An appellate court may not conduct a de
novo review of the public and private factors considered by the trial court, but rather must
limit its review to a determination of whether the trial court's balancing of the relevant factors
was clearly arbitrary or unreasonable." Omans v. Norfolk S. Ry., 165 Ohio App.3d 146,
2006-Ohio-325, ¶ 10 (6th Dist.); Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Allstate Property & Cas. Ins. Co., 12th
Dist. Butler No. CA2009-01-017, 2009-Ohio-3540, ¶ 16 (an appellate court will not
independently assess and reweigh each private and public interest factor considered by the
trial court).
{¶ 11} The trial court granted The Madison's motion to dismiss appellants' complaint
on the basis of forum non conveniens, finding that
All of the sources of proof are located in Kentucky, as well as all
of the witnesses, and the event center itself. If a view of the
event center were appropriate, the Court would have to
contemplate taking jurors to Kentucky. Moreover, the public
interest factors implicated in this action are the fact that the
people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky have an interest in
how Kentucky Governor Andy B[e]shear's COVID-19
regulations are interpreted, not the citizens of Warren County,
Ohio.
The regulations sought to be litigated in this case are specific to
Kentucky. Plaintiffs may not have selected Kenton County,
Kentucky as their preferred choice of forum for litigation, but it
was their location of choice for their wedding. All the discovery
documents, witnesses, and the facility itself are located in
Kentucky. The only connection with Warren County, Ohio is that
two of the four Plaintiffs reside in Warren County and the
contract was alleged to have been partially signed in Warren
County. * * * [T]he legal issues in this case are firmly rooted in
Kentucky.
-4-
Warren CA2021-06-057
{¶ 12} Appellants argue the trial court arbitrarily dismissed their complaint "without
any evidence" that the Chambers factors favored The Madison. Appellants further assert
that the trial court did not properly consider the fact that appellants live in or near Warren
County, Ohio, that the residence of other potential witnesses is unknown, that the contract
was signed in Ohio, that the essential evidence is primarily documentary, and that the state
of Ohio has an interest in resolving suits brought by one of its residents and has a
substantial interest in seeing that its residents get the benefit of their bargains. We find no
merits to appellants' arguments.
{¶ 13} Appellants' arguments amount to nothing more than an assertion the trial
court should have weighed the Chambers factors differently. However, we do not review
the issue de novo. Rather, we only determine whether the trial court's balancing of the
relevant factors was clearly arbitrary or unreasonable. Lee v. Burnett, 10th Dist. Franklin
No. 07AP-40, 2007-Ohio-3742, ¶ 12. Contrary to appellants' assertion, the trial court
considered the relevant public and private interest factors and reasonably balanced those
factors. The central claim in appellants' complaint was that Kentucky's COVID-19
regulations prevented The Madison from hosting the wedding reception in 2020. Besides
the location of the facility in Kenton County, Kentucky, the trial court determined that the
case turns upon the application and interpretation of Kentucky's COVID-19 regulations.
Kentucky's COVID-19 regulations bear little relation to Ohio interests. A decision of an Ohio
court interpreting Kentucky's COVID-19 regulations would have no binding effect anywhere
in Kentucky beyond the parties to this lawsuit. As the trial court aptly stated, "the legal
issues in this case are firmly rooted in Kentucky." Given Kentucky's greater interest in this
matter, the trial court's decision granting The Madison's motion to dismiss is not
unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable and does not reflect "perversity of will, passion,
prejudice, partiality, or moral delinquency." Chambers, 35 Ohio St.3d at 133.
-5-
Warren CA2021-06-057
{¶ 14} We therefore find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing
appellants' complaint on the basis of forum non conveniens. Appellants' assignment of
error is overruled.
{¶ 15} Judgment affirmed.
PIPER, P.J., and BYRNE, J., concur.
-6-