[Cite as Epperson v. Covington Madison Corp. , 2021-Ohio-4359.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE D ISTRICT OF OHIO

WARREN COUNTY

CLAYTON EPPERSON, et al., Appellants,

- vs -

THE COVINGTON MADISON CORP., Appellee. :

:

:

:

:

: CASE NO. CA2021-06-057

O P I N I O N

12/13/2021

CIVIL APPEAL FROM WARREN CO UNTY 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 E mily's parents, John Peltz and Judith Condit, appeal a decision of the Warren County Court of Common Pleas dismissing their complaint against appellee, The C ovington Madison Corp. dba The Madison Event Center ("The Madison"), pursuant to the d octrine of forum non

conveniens.Warren CA2021-06-057

- 2 - {¶ 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 Th e 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 ce remony and reception for September 26, 2020. {¶ 3} During the pertinent time peri od, the governor of Kentucky issu ed several COVID-19 regulations that significantly impacted the operation of Kentucky businesses, including those hosting wedding events. Among those regulation s 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 subsequ ent regulations would prevent The Madison from accommodating the number of guests ant icipated for the wedding reception, appellants sought to cancel their reservatio n of The Madison's facility and obtain a refund of what they had paid The Madison. The Mad ison 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 M adison in the Warren County Court of Common Pleas, seeking a declaratory judg ment and money damages for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversi on. The Madison answered and then moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis o f forum non conveniens, asserting that Kenton County, Kentucky was a more appropriate f orum. 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 TOWarren CA2021-06-057

- 3 - DISMISS THIS ACTION ON GROUNDS OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS

. {¶ 7} Appellants argue that the trial court erred when it dismissed t heir complaint

on the basis of forum non conveniens. {¶ 8} "The doctrine of forum non conveniens permits a court to dismis s an action to further the ends of justice and to promote the convenience of t he parties, even though jurisdiction and venue are proper in the court chosen by the pl aintiff." Calvary Industries,

Inc. v. Coral Chem. Co. , 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2016-12-233, 2017-Ohio-7279, ¶ 16, ci ting Chambers v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 35 Ohio St.3d 123, 125 (1988). A plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed, particu larly when the plaintiff has

chosen his or her home forum. Chambers at 127. {¶ 9} "In determining whether dismissal on the basis of forum non con veniens is proper, the trial court must consider the facts of each case, b alancing the private interests of the litigants and the public interest involving the courts a nd 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 o f compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses, (3) the cost of obtaining at tendance of unwilling witnesses, (4) the possibility of a view of the premises, if ap propriate, 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 adminis trative difficulties and delay to other litigants caused by congested court calendars, (2) the im position of jury duty upon the citizens of a community that has very little relation to the li tigation, (3) a local interest in having localized controversies decided at home, and (4) the app ropriateness 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 nonWarren CA2021-06-057

- 4 - conveniens rests with the trial court's discretion, the exercis e 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 p ublic and private interest factors, and where its balancing of these factors is reasonable, its dec ision 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 appell ate court will not independently assess and reweigh each private and public intere st factor considered by the trial court). {¶ 11} The trial court granted The Madison's motion to dismiss appella nts' 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 th e 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 th e 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 specifi c 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 discov ery 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 roote d in Kentucky.Warren CA2021-06-057

- 5 - {¶ 12} Appellants argue the trial court arbitrarily dismissed their co mplaint "without any evidence" that the Chambers factors favored The Madison. Appellants further assert that the trial court did not properly consider the fact that ap pellants live in or near Warren County, Ohio, that the residence of other potential witnesses i s unknown, that the contract was signed in Ohio, that the essential evidence is primarily do cumentary, and that the state of Ohio has an interest in resolving suits brought by one of it s residents and has a substantial interest in seeing t hat its residents get the benef it 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' ass ertion, the trial court considered the relevant public and private interest factors and reasonably balanced those factors. The central claim in appellants' complaint was that K entucky's COVID-19 regulations prevented The Madison from hosting the wedding rece ption in 2020. Besides the location of the facility in Kenton County, Kentucky, the tr ial court determined that the case turns upon the application and interpretation of Kentucky' s COVID-19 regulations. Kentucky's COVID-19 regulations b ear little relation to Ohio in terests. A decision of an Ohio court interpreting Kentucky's CO VID-19 regulati ons would have n o binding effect anywhere in Kentucky beyond the parties to this lawsuit. As the trial c ourt aptly stated, "the legal issues in this case are firmly rooted in Kentucky." Given Kent ucky's greater int erest in this matter, the trial court's decision granting The Madison's motio n 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.Warren CA2021-06-057

- 6 - {¶ 14} We therefore find that the trial court did not abuse its discre tion in dismissing appellants' complaint on the basis of forum non conveniens. Ap pellants' assignment of

error is overruled. {¶ 15} Judgment affirmed.

PIPER, P.J., and BYRNE, J., concur.