[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., 

 

 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 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 - 

{¶ 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 
Warren CA2021-06-057 

 - 3 - 

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 
Warren CA2021-06-057 

 - 4 - 

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. 
Warren CA2021-06-057 

 - 5 - 

{¶ 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. 
Warren CA2021-06-057 

 - 6 - 

{¶ 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.