Preview
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 May 28 12:59 PM-21CV001936
OF515 - N9
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO
CIVIL DIVISION
Abdirizak Abdullahi
Plaintiff,
Case No. 21CV-03-1936
vs.
Judge Richard A. Frye
CEVA Ground US, LP., et al
Defendants.
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FORUM NON CONVENIENS
Defendants CEVA Freight LLC f/k/a CEVA Ground U.S. LP and Abdinor Salad Olow, by
and through their undersigned counsel, hereby move to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for forum
non conveniens. Dismissal is appropriate because a more convenient forum is available in
Sequoyah County, Oklahoma, where the events alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint occurred. A
Memorandum in Support is attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Respectfully submitted.
Ls KevinP. Foley
Kevin P. Foley (0059949)
REMINGER CO., LPA
200 Civic Center Drive, Suite 800
Columbus, OH 43215
Direct: (614) 232-2416
Fax: (614) 232-2410
Email fey TL
Counsel for Defendants CEVA
Freight LLC fk/a CEVA Ground
U.S. LP and Abdinor Salad Olow
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 May 28 12:59 PM-21CV001936
OF515 - N9
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
This case involves a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Sequoyah County, Oklahoma
Plaintiffs are now asking this Court to expend its scarce and valuable resources to determine
liability for an accident that occurred in another state. Litigating this case in the Franklin County
Court of Common Pleas would not only be a poor use of this Court’s resources, but it would also
create a substantial barrier to justice for Defendants. All the physical evidence and the majority of
the witnesses are more than 800 miles away in Oklahoma. This includes the sole eyewitness to the
accident whose testimony may prove to be dispositive of Defendants’ liability. Due to the distant
location of the evidence and the limitations on this Court’s subpoena power over out-of-state
nonparty witnesses, Defendants would be deprived of their opportunity to present an effective
defense if this case remains in this Court. Because it would be more convenient to litigate this case
where the accident occurred and where the evidence remains, the doctrine of forum non conveniens
requires that this action be dismissed.
1, Statement of Facts!
Plaintiff, Abdirizak Abdullahi, and Co-Defendant, Abdinor Salad Olow, are independent
contractors of Co-Defendant CEVA Freight LLC f/k/a CEVA Ground U.S. LP (“CEVA”). CEVA
is a logistics company that regularly contracts with drivers to operate tractor-trailers to transport
products across the country. (Compl., 8). On April 11, 2019, Olow was operating a CEVA tractor
trailer on Interstate 40 in Roland, Oklahoma. (/d. at P 13). The car ahead of the tractor trailer
slowed abruptly, and Olow rear-ended it. (/d. at P 16). The driver of this car, Adrianne Sisco,
(“Decedent”) was fatally injured. (/d. at P 19). Plaintiff was sleeping in the sleeper cab of the
tractor at the time of the accident. (/d. at |? 17). He fell forward into the driver’s cab of the truck
' For purposes of this Motion, the facts as outlined here are those alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint and are not admitted
as true for any other purpose.
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 May 28 12:59 PM-21CV001936
OF515 - N9
and was injured. (/d. at P 20 ). Even though the accident occurred in Oklahoma, which is where
the overwhelming majority of witnesses reside, Plaintiff brought this action in Ohio. (See generally
Compl.).
2. LAW AND ARGUMENT
a. The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens Requires this Court to Dismiss this
Action Because it is More Convenient to Litigate this Case in Sequoyah
County, Oklahoma.
The doctrine of forum non conveniens provides the trial court with a framework for
exercising its inherent power to dismiss a case when another venue is more convenient. Chambers
y. Merrell-Dow Pharms., 35 Ohio St.3d 123, 519 N.E.2d 370 (1988). The doctrine assumes that
jurisdiction and venue are proper in the court the plaintiff has chosen, and also presupposes that
an alternate forum in which the defendants may be sued is available. /d. at 126. But “[o]nce a court
has determined that the alternate forum is more convenient, the common-law doctrine requires the
court to dismiss the action.” /d. at 127 (citing Gulf oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508-09
(1947)) (emphasis added). The dismissal may be conditioned on the refiling of the action in the
more convenient forum with the defendants consenting, inter alia, to jurisdiction, to waive any
statute of limitations defenses, and to comply with the discovery rules of the original forum. Jd.
1 An alternate forum is available in Oklahoma.
As a threshold matter, forum non conveniens requires that there be an alternate forum
available in which the case can be brought. Chambers, 35 Ohio St.3d at 127 (1988). A party is
subject to personal jurisdiction within a state where he has minimum contacts, of which he
purposefully availed himself, and the claims arose out of those contacts. Jnt’l Shoe Co. v. Wash.,
326 U.S. 310 (1945). Here, the accident which is the subject of this case occurred in Oklahoma,
and the parties purposefully availed themselves of Oklahoma’s jurisdiction by driving through the
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 May 28 12:59 PM-21CV001936
OF515 - N9
state. Accordingly, the parties are subject to personal jurisdiction in Oklahoma for any claims
arising from the accident. See McKinnis v. Kelly, 773 P.2d 772, 773 (Ok. Ct. App. 1989) (“We
find that the operation of a motor vehicle by a non-resident motorist on the roads and highways of
this state, when combined with an act or omission in this state in the operation of that motor vehicle
that causes injury to another, is a sufficient ‘minimum contact’ with the State of Oklahoma so as
to vest jurisdiction over a non-resident motorist in the District Courts of this state.”). Thus, an
alternate forum is available in Oklahoma.
ii The Balance of Private and Public Interests Favors Litigating in
Oklahoma.
Next, the court must determine whether the alternate forum is more convenient than the
forum in which the case was brought. Chambers, 35 Ohio St.3d at 127. This determination requires
courts to balance “the private interests of the litigants and factors of public interest involving the
courts and citizens of the forum.” /d. If these factors indicate that a more convenient forum is
available, the doctrine of forum non conveniens requires dismissal. /d. In this case, each one of the
factors to be considered points in favor of litigating this case where the accident occurred and
where the evidence remains—in Sequoyah County, Oklahoma.
In balancing the public- and private-interest factors, Ohio Courts have consistently held
that a case involving an automobile accident should be tried in the state where the accident
occurred. Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2009-Ohio-3540 (12th Dist.);
Stidham v. Butsch, 163 Ohio App. 3d 227, 2005-Ohio-4591, 837 N.E.2d 433 (1st Dist.);
Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Modroo, 2004-Ohio-4697 (11th Dist.).
Cincinnati Ins. Co. involved an automobile accident that took place in Adams County,
Indiana. 2009-Ohio-3540. The plaintiff was insured by Cincinnati Insurance Company (“CIC”)
and was operating an Allstate insured vehicle owned by a friend of the plaintiff, who was an Ohio
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 May 28 12:59 PM-21CV001936
OF515 - N9
resident, when he collided with a motorcyclist. /d. at P 2. Allstate denied coverage, and CIC paid
the entire settlement between the plaintiff and the motorcyclist. /d. CIC sued Allstate in Butler
County, Ohio, where CIC’s principal place of business is located, and where both policies were
issued and executed. /d. at PP 3. Allstate filed a motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens,
arguing that Indiana is a more convenient forum. /d. at |P 3. Allstate noted that the insurance claim
was the result of an accident in Indiana, and as such, the litigation should take place there as well.
Id. at P 17. The witnesses, the evidence relating to the accident, and the settlement agreement were
all located in Indiana. /d. Also, Adams County, Indiana has a much lower population than Butler
County, Ohio, so there would be less delay in litigation. /d. at P 18. CIC argued that the dispute
was about the insurance coverage rather than the underlying accident, so the factors cited by
Allstate would not be implicated. /d. at P 17. The trial court rejected this argument and granted
Allstate’s motion to dismiss, even though the Plaintiff's principal place of business was in Ohio
and the dispute concerned insurance coverage and not liability for the accident. /d. at P 3. The
Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. /d. at [P 25.
The balance of private and public interests in the instant case conforms with the
presumption that cases involving motor vehicle accidents should be tried in the state in which the
accident occurred. Here, the factors weigh even more heavily in favor of dismissal than in
Cincinnati Ins. Co. because while Cincinnati Ins. Co. dealt with underlying insurance policies, the
instant case relates directly to liability surrounding the accident. Thus, it is extremely important
that all the existing evidence relating to the accident be available for use at trial.
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 May 28 12:59 PM-21CV001936
OF515 - N9
1. The Private-Interest Factors Weigh in Favor of Litigating in
Oklahoma.
Private interests to be considered include:
The relative ease of access to sources of proof; availability of compulsory process
for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing,
witnesses; possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to the
action; and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious
and inexpensive.
Chambers, 35 Ohio St.3d at 126-27 (quoting Gilbert, 330 U.S. at 508 - 509). Because this
accident occurred in Sequoyah County, Oklahoma, a great majority of the evidence will be
unavailable to the parties or will be extremely difficult and expensive to obtain if the case is tried
in Ohio. The impossibility of obtaining all the necessary evidence would cause substantial
injustice to Defendants.
First and foremost, the overwhelming majority of witnesses are located in Oklahoma or
just across the border in Arkansas. Defendants have identified many witnesses they may want to
testify live at trial, including
e Debra Mabray
P.O. Box 1024
305 Mabray Lane
Muldrow, Oklahoma 74948
Distance: 13 miles from Sequoyah County District Court
842 miles from Franklin County Common Pleas Court
Connection: Mabray was an eyewitness to the events just before the accident and saw the
driver of the other vehicle at a dead stop in the road for no apparent reason. Her testimony
may be dispositive of Defendants’ liability for the accident
Byron Curtis, Ph.D., F-ABFT
Oklahoma Office of the Chief Medical Examiner-Eastern Division
1115 West 17th Street
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74107
Distance: 95 miles from Sequoyah County District Court
815 miles from Franklin County Common Pleas Court
Connection: Dr. Curtis performed a toxicology screen on Decedent, which tested positive
for methamphetamine and Tetrahydrocannabinol
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 May 28 12:59 PM-21CV001936
OF515 - N9
Sean Mize
Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation
800 E. 2nd Street
Edmond, Oklahoma 73034
Distance: 172 miles from Sequoyah County District Court
910 miles from Franklin County Common Pleas Court
Connection: Mize conducted toxicology on a blood sample taken from Olow which
reflected negative results for drugs and alcohol
Trooper Russell Knoke
Oklahoma Highway Patrol
220 NE 38th Terrace
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105
Distance: 162 miles from Sequoyah County District Court
913 miles from Franklin County Common Pleas Court
Connection: Trooper Knoke conducted a post-collision inspection of CEVA’s truck,
finding no problems or violations.
Trooper Tim Baker
Oklahoma Highway Patrol
3600 north M.L. King Avenue
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73111
Distance: 160 miles from Sequoyah County District Court
911 miles from Franklin County Common Pleas Court
Connection: Trooper Baker investigated the accident scene and determined that Olow was
driving below the speed limit just before the accident.
Jim Bexley
Custard Insurance Adjusters, Inc
21 W. Mountain St. # 121
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Distance: 79 miles from Sequoyah County District Court
762 miles from Franklin County Common Pleas Court
Connection: Bexley investigated the accident scene
Trooper Sheldon Dobbs
Oklahoma Highway Patrol
1806 North York Street
Muskogee, Oklahoma 74403
Distance: 47 miles from Sequoyah County District Court
820 miles from Franklin County Common Pleas Court
Connection: Trooper Dobbs investigated the accident scene.
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 May 28 12:59 PM-21CV001936
OF515 - O1
e Captain Damon Tucker
Oklahoma Highway Patrol
3600 North M.L. King Avenue 160
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73111
Distance: 160 miles from Sequoyah County District Court
911 miles from Franklin County Common Pleas Court
Connection: Captain Tucker investigated the accident scene
Hog Creek Towing, and all its employees, agents, representatives, and custodians of
records
2500 E. Redwood Avenue
Sallisaw, Oklahoma 74955
Distance: 162 miles from Sequoyah County District Court
854 miles from Franklin County Common Pleas Court
Connection: Hog Creek employees observed damage to, and towed, CEVA’s truck
following the accident
Freddy’s Wrecker, and all its employees, agents, representatives, and custodians of
records
415 W. Ray Fine Boulevard 16
Roland, Oklahoma 74954
Distance: 16 miles from Sequoyah County District Court
838 miles from Franklin County Common Pleas Court
Connection: Freddy’s wrecker employees observed damage to, and towed, the vehicle that
Olow collided with.
Defendants are entitled to call these witnesses to testify live at trial and to compel their attendance
at trial through a subpoena. State v. Moes/e, 181 Ohio App.3d 696, 2009-Ohio-1326, PP 13 (10th
Dist.). The testimony of each of them could prove to be vitally important in determining liability
for Plaintiff's injuries. The testimony of these witnesses will prove that:
The decedent caused the accident by abruptly stopping in the roadway;
The decedent was driving impaired on methamphetamine and tetrahydrocannabinol;
Olow was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol;
Olow was traveling below the speed limit just before the accident; and
The CEVA truck was not defective
Each of these facts will contribute to absolving Defendants of liability for the accident;
however, this Court’s subpoena power to compel witnesses to testify at trial does not reach out-
of-state nonparties in Oklahoma, so if this case were to remain in the Franklin County Common
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 May 28 12:59 PM-21CV001936
OF515 - 02
Pleas Court, Defendants would be deprived of their right to call these witnesses to testify live at
trial. See Gibsonburg Health, LLC v. Miniet, 2018-Ohio-3510, |P 8 (6th Dist.) (citing Chambers,
35 Ohio St.3d at 133). And until November 1, 2021, the date the Uniform Interstate Depositions
and Discovery Act (“the Act”) becomes effective in Oklahoma, nonparty witnesses in Oklahoma
may not be compelled to testify by deposition, either. Okla. ENR H.B. No. 2229 (2021). Even
after the effective date, the Act will not affect out of state nonparty witnesses’ immunity to
subpoenas to testify live at trial, as the Act covers only subpoenas requiring a person to attend a
deposition, produce documents, or permit inspection of premises. /d.
In Stidham, the court upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff’s case for forum non conveniens
because “[t]he allegedly negligent operation of the vehicle took place in Indiana, and necessary
witnesses would likely be beyond the subpoena powers of an Ohio court.” 2005-Ohio-4591, [P 8.
Only a credible witness’s testimony is effective, and credibility cannot be accurately determined
by listening to a recitation of deposition testimony. Live testimony is crucial to judge a witness’s
credibility. Justice Resnick noted the importance of live testimony in stating that “the value of
live testimony in assessing credibility cannot be doubted. For centuries, the personal appearance
of witnesses before a factfinder has been deemed a comerstone of our judicial process and
indispensable to the ascertainment of truth.” Arrington v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 109 Ohio St.3d
539, 2006-Ohio-3257, |P 76 (Resnick, J., dissenting). This Court must not deprive Defendants of
such an “indispensable” right.
Even if Defendants can secure deposition testimony from witnesses, it may not be
admissible at trial. Deposition testimony is hearsay and must meet an exception in order to be
admissible. Southard Supply, Inc. v. Anthem Contrs., Inc., 2017-Ohio-7298, P 28 (10th Dist.). To
satisfy the hearsay exception for former testimony under Evid.R. 804(B)(1), Defendants would
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 May 28 12:59 PM-21CV001936
OF515 - 03
have to prove that the declarant is unavailable to testify at trial despite “reasonable efforts made
in good faith to secure his presence.” State v. Keairns, 9 Ohio St.3d 228, 460 N.E.2d 245, syllabus
2 (1984). Showing that reasonable efforts to secure the declarant’s presence for trial were made
requires sworn testimony and cannot be proven by hearsay. /d. at syllabus 2. In sum, this would
require Defendants to issue subpoenas to witnesses to appear at trial, even though their efforts
would almost certainly be futile as such subpoenas are unenforceable against out-of-state
nonparty witnesses. Then, when the witnesses do not appear at trial, Defendants would be
required to provide sworn testimony outlining their efforts to secure the witnesses’ presence in
order to prove that they are unavailable. All this would be necessary just to introduce deposition
testimony, which is not nearly as effective as live testimony. Defendants, already being deprived
of their opportunity to call witnesses to testify live at trial, would be forced to jump through
procedural hoops just to introduce deposition testimony. This entire process, which would come
at the monetary and temporal expense of each party and this Court, would be avoided if the case
were litigated in Oklahoma.
In the unlikely event a witness voluntarily agrees to testify live at trial, their travel
expenses would fall on Defendants, serving as a further injustice to be incurred. Defendants would
be forced to pay the cost of the witnesses’ 800+ mile journey from Oklahoma to Columbus, Ohio,
as well as their lodging expenses when they arrive. These additional expenses would be avoided
if the case were litigated in Oklahoma.
Finally, a jury view of the accident site or other physical evidence may be necessary but
would be impractical if the case were litigated in Ohio. Roland, Oklahoma, where the accident
occurred, is 839 miles from the Franklin County Common Pleas court and just 18 miles from the
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 May 28 12:59 PM-21CV001936
OF515 - 04
Sequoyah County Court House. As this case hinges on liability for the accident and Plaintiff's
injuries, viewing the accident site may very well be necessary
Each of the private interest factors weighs heavily in favor of litigating this case in
Oklahoma. Defendants would suffer substantial injustice if they were forced to incur extra
expenses and still not be able to present all the necessary evidence. Defendants’ opportunity to
present their best evidence should not be subordinated to Plaintiff's choice of forum
2. The Public-Interest Factors Weigh in Favor of Litigating in
Oklahoma.
The public interests to be considered include:
The administrative difficulties and delay to other litigants caused by congested
court calendars, the imposition of jury duty upon the citizens of a community which
has very little relation to the litigation, a local interest in having localized
controversies decided at home, and the appropriateness of litigating a case in a
forum familiar with the applicable law
Chambers, 35 Ohio St.3d at 127. As with the private-interest factors, the public-interest
factors weigh heavily in favor of litigating this case in Sequoyah County, Oklahoma
The first public interest factor to consider is court congestion. The United States
Census Bureau’s most recent population estimate for Franklin County, Ohio was
1,316,756.? The Franklin County Common Pleas court has 17 judges.’ This means that the
ratio of Franklin County residents to Common Pleas judges is 77,456 to 1. The population
estimate for the same time in Sequoyah County, Oklahoma is just 41,569.4 The Sequoyah
County District Court has three judges.* Thus, the ratio of Sequoya County residents to
District Court judges is 13,856 to 1—five and a half times less than the ratio in Franklin
? United States Census Bureau,
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/franklincounty ohio,sequoyahcountyoklahoma/PST045219
5 https:/Avww.fccourts.org/242/Judges.
* United States Census Bureau, Supra. n. 2.
> https://seqcounty .com/district-judges.php.
10
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 May 28 12:59 PM-21CV001936
OF515 - 05
County. This congestion in Franklin County, coupled with the burden of waiting until
November 1, 2021 to be able to compel deposition testimony from witnesses in Oklahoma
(as discussed above) indicates that the resolution of this case will take significantly longer
if it is litigated in Franklin County, Ohio rather than in Sequoyah County, Oklahoma.
Defendants should not be forced to bear the burden of defending themselves from
Plaintiff’ s allegations any longer than necessary.
Also, the citizens of Franklin County should not be forced to serve on a jury to
determine liability for an automobile accident that occurred in another state. “Jury duty is
a burden that ought not to be imposed upon the people of a community which has no
relation to the litigation.” Gilbert, 330 U.S. at 508-09. To the contrary, communities have
a local interest in having localized controversies decided at home. This case presents a
classic localized controversy. Sequoyah County, Oklahoma has a local interest in keeping
their roads safe and protecting all those who enter their jurisdiction from bodily harm
Thus, a Sequoyah County jury should determine who was responsible for the alleged
injuries in this case.
Finally, Oklahoma law will govern this case, no matter where it is tried. As such,
an Oklahoma court should preside over it. “[A] presumption is created that the law of the
place of the injury controls unless another jurisdiction has a more significant relationship
to the lawsuit.” Morgan v. Biro Mfg. Co., 15 Ohio St. 3d 339, 442, 474 N.E.2d 286 (1984).
Courts consider five factors to determine whether another state has a more significant
relationship to the lawsuit:
(1) the place of the injury; (2) the place where the conduct causing the injury
occurred; (3) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and
place of business of the parties; (4) the place where the relationship between
the parties, if any, is located; and (5) any factors under Section 6 [of the
11
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 May 28 12:59 PM-21CV001936
OF515 - 06
Second Restatement of the Law of Conflicts*] which the court may deem
relevant to the litigation.
Id.
Here, the presumption is that Oklahoma law will apply because that is where
the alleged injury occurred. See id. Additionally, all but one factor weighs in favor
of using Oklahoma law. Oklahoma was the place of the conduct causing the injury
and of the injury itself. It is also where the relationship between the parties is
located. Plaintiff and Defendants’ only connection is through the accident that
occurred in Oklahoma. The sole factor weighing in favor of applying Ohio law is
that Plaintiffis domiciled in Ohio. But this single factor is not sufficient to outweigh
the multiple factors in favor of using Oklahoma law, especially against the
backdrop of the presumption that the law of the place of the injury controls. See
Walker v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 2018-Ohio-1810, § 21 (“There are no
alternative presumptions in the choice of law analysis.”)
Because Oklahoma law will govern, Oklahoma trial and appellate courts will be
able to handle the case more efficiently. This strengthens Oklahoma’s interest in having
the case heard in its courts
Like the Private-interest factors, each of the public-interest factors weigh in favor
of litigating this case in Oklahoma. Overall judicial economy would be best served by
© These factors include:
(a) the needs of the interstate and international systems,
(b) the relevant policies of the forum,
(c) the relevant policies of other interested states and the relative interests of those states in the determination of the
particular issue,
(d) the protection of justified expectations,
(e) the basic policies underlying the particular field of law,
(f) certainty, predictability and uniformity of result, and
(g) ease in the determination and application of law to be applied.
12
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 May 28 12:59 PM-21CV001936
OF515 - O7
dismissing this case and requiring it to be litigated in Sequoyah County, Oklahoma. As all
the public- and private-interest factors to be considered show that a more convenient forum
is available, the doctrine of forum non conveniens requires this case to be dismissed. See
Chambers, 35 Ohio St.3d at 127
3. CONCLUSION
The most convenient resolution of this matter—for the parties and witnesses, as
well as for the public as a whole—requires that this case be litigated where the accident
occurred, in Sequoyah County, Oklahoma, rather than in Ohio. Accordingly, Defendants
respectfully request this Court dismiss this case based on forum non conveniens.
Respectfully submitted.
[of Kein. Foley
Kevin P. Foley (0059949)
REMINGER CO., LPA
200 Civic Center Drive, Suite 800
Columbus, OH 43215
Direct: (614) 232-2416
Fax: (614) 232-2410
Email: kfoies inger
Counsel for Defendants CE|
Freight LLC fk/a CEVA Ground
U.S. LP and Abdinor Salad Olow
13
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 May 28 12:59 PM-21CV001936
OF515 - 08
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies the foregoing document was submitted for filing via the
Court’s e-Filing system, and that service of the foregoing document was made via the Court’s
e-Filing System on the 28th day of May, 2021, to:
Nathan E. Colombo, Esq. (#0098343)
Travis T. Mohler, Esq. (#0083365)
Colombo Law
4016 Townsfair Way, Suite 210
Columbus, OH 43219
Email: Nathan@@colombolaw. com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Abdirizak Abdullahi
[of Kein. Foley
Kevin P. Foley (0059949)
14
Preview
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 May 28 12:59 PM-21CV001936 OF515 - N9 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO CIVIL DIVISION Abdirizak Abdullahi Plaintiff, Case No. 21CV-03-1936 vs. Judge Richard A. Frye CEVA Ground US, LP., et al Defendants. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FORUM NON CONVENIENS Defendants CEVA Freight LLC f/k/a CEVA Ground U.S. LP and Abdinor Salad Olow, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby move to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for forum non conveniens. Dismissal is appropriate because a more convenient forum is available in Sequoyah County, Oklahoma, where the events alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint occurred. A Memorandum in Support is attached hereto and incorporated herein. Respectfully submitted. Ls KevinP. Foley Kevin P. Foley (0059949) REMINGER CO., LPA 200 Civic Center Drive, Suite 800 Columbus, OH 43215 Direct: (614) 232-2416 Fax: (614) 232-2410 Email fey TL Counsel for Defendants CEVA Freight LLC fk/a CEVA Ground U.S. LP and Abdinor Salad Olow Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 May 28 12:59 PM-21CV001936 OF515 - N9 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT This case involves a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Sequoyah County, Oklahoma Plaintiffs are now asking this Court to expend its scarce and valuable resources to determine liability for an accident that occurred in another state. Litigating this case in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas would not only be a poor use of this Court’s resources, but it would also create a substantial barrier to justice for Defendants. All the physical evidence and the majority of the witnesses are more than 800 miles away in Oklahoma. This includes the sole eyewitness to the accident whose testimony may prove to be dispositive of Defendants’ liability. Due to the distant location of the evidence and the limitations on this Court’s subpoena power over out-of-state nonparty witnesses, Defendants would be deprived of their opportunity to present an effective defense if this case remains in this Court. Because it would be more convenient to litigate this case where the accident occurred and where the evidence remains, the doctrine of forum non conveniens requires that this action be dismissed. 1, Statement of Facts! Plaintiff, Abdirizak Abdullahi, and Co-Defendant, Abdinor Salad Olow, are independent contractors of Co-Defendant CEVA Freight LLC f/k/a CEVA Ground U.S. LP (“CEVA”). CEVA is a logistics company that regularly contracts with drivers to operate tractor-trailers to transport products across the country. (Compl., 8). On April 11, 2019, Olow was operating a CEVA tractor trailer on Interstate 40 in Roland, Oklahoma. (/d. at P 13). The car ahead of the tractor trailer slowed abruptly, and Olow rear-ended it. (/d. at P 16). The driver of this car, Adrianne Sisco, (“Decedent”) was fatally injured. (/d. at P 19). Plaintiff was sleeping in the sleeper cab of the tractor at the time of the accident. (/d. at |? 17). He fell forward into the driver’s cab of the truck ' For purposes of this Motion, the facts as outlined here are those alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint and are not admitted as true for any other purpose. Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 May 28 12:59 PM-21CV001936 OF515 - N9 and was injured. (/d. at P 20 ). Even though the accident occurred in Oklahoma, which is where the overwhelming majority of witnesses reside, Plaintiff brought this action in Ohio. (See generally Compl.). 2. LAW AND ARGUMENT a. The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens Requires this Court to Dismiss this Action Because it is More Convenient to Litigate this Case in Sequoyah County, Oklahoma. The doctrine of forum non conveniens provides the trial court with a framework for exercising its inherent power to dismiss a case when another venue is more convenient. Chambers y. Merrell-Dow Pharms., 35 Ohio St.3d 123, 519 N.E.2d 370 (1988). The doctrine assumes that jurisdiction and venue are proper in the court the plaintiff has chosen, and also presupposes that an alternate forum in which the defendants may be sued is available. /d. at 126. But “[o]nce a court has determined that the alternate forum is more convenient, the common-law doctrine requires the court to dismiss the action.” /d. at 127 (citing Gulf oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508-09 (1947)) (emphasis added). The dismissal may be conditioned on the refiling of the action in the more convenient forum with the defendants consenting, inter alia, to jurisdiction, to waive any statute of limitations defenses, and to comply with the discovery rules of the original forum. Jd. 1 An alternate forum is available in Oklahoma. As a threshold matter, forum non conveniens requires that there be an alternate forum available in which the case can be brought. Chambers, 35 Ohio St.3d at 127 (1988). A party is subject to personal jurisdiction within a state where he has minimum contacts, of which he purposefully availed himself, and the claims arose out of those contacts. Jnt’l Shoe Co. v. Wash., 326 U.S. 310 (1945). Here, the accident which is the subject of this case occurred in Oklahoma, and the parties purposefully availed themselves of Oklahoma’s jurisdiction by driving through the Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 May 28 12:59 PM-21CV001936 OF515 - N9 state. Accordingly, the parties are subject to personal jurisdiction in Oklahoma for any claims arising from the accident. See McKinnis v. Kelly, 773 P.2d 772, 773 (Ok. Ct. App. 1989) (“We find that the operation of a motor vehicle by a non-resident motorist on the roads and highways of this state, when combined with an act or omission in this state in the operation of that motor vehicle that causes injury to another, is a sufficient ‘minimum contact’ with the State of Oklahoma so as to vest jurisdiction over a non-resident motorist in the District Courts of this state.”). Thus, an alternate forum is available in Oklahoma. ii The Balance of Private and Public Interests Favors Litigating in Oklahoma. Next, the court must determine whether the alternate forum is more convenient than the forum in which the case was brought. Chambers, 35 Ohio St.3d at 127. This determination requires courts to balance “the private interests of the litigants and factors of public interest involving the courts and citizens of the forum.” /d. If these factors indicate that a more convenient forum is available, the doctrine of forum non conveniens requires dismissal. /d. In this case, each one of the factors to be considered points in favor of litigating this case where the accident occurred and where the evidence remains—in Sequoyah County, Oklahoma. In balancing the public- and private-interest factors, Ohio Courts have consistently held that a case involving an automobile accident should be tried in the state where the accident occurred. Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2009-Ohio-3540 (12th Dist.); Stidham v. Butsch, 163 Ohio App. 3d 227, 2005-Ohio-4591, 837 N.E.2d 433 (1st Dist.); Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Modroo, 2004-Ohio-4697 (11th Dist.). Cincinnati Ins. Co. involved an automobile accident that took place in Adams County, Indiana. 2009-Ohio-3540. The plaintiff was insured by Cincinnati Insurance Company (“CIC”) and was operating an Allstate insured vehicle owned by a friend of the plaintiff, who was an Ohio Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 May 28 12:59 PM-21CV001936 OF515 - N9 resident, when he collided with a motorcyclist. /d. at P 2. Allstate denied coverage, and CIC paid the entire settlement between the plaintiff and the motorcyclist. /d. CIC sued Allstate in Butler County, Ohio, where CIC’s principal place of business is located, and where both policies were issued and executed. /d. at PP 3. Allstate filed a motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens, arguing that Indiana is a more convenient forum. /d. at |P 3. Allstate noted that the insurance claim was the result of an accident in Indiana, and as such, the litigation should take place there as well. Id. at P 17. The witnesses, the evidence relating to the accident, and the settlement agreement were all located in Indiana. /d. Also, Adams County, Indiana has a much lower population than Butler County, Ohio, so there would be less delay in litigation. /d. at P 18. CIC argued that the dispute was about the insurance coverage rather than the underlying accident, so the factors cited by Allstate would not be implicated. /d. at P 17. The trial court rejected this argument and granted Allstate’s motion to dismiss, even though the Plaintiff's principal place of business was in Ohio and the dispute concerned insurance coverage and not liability for the accident. /d. at P 3. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. /d. at [P 25. The balance of private and public interests in the instant case conforms with the presumption that cases involving motor vehicle accidents should be tried in the state in which the accident occurred. Here, the factors weigh even more heavily in favor of dismissal than in Cincinnati Ins. Co. because while Cincinnati Ins. Co. dealt with underlying insurance policies, the instant case relates directly to liability surrounding the accident. Thus, it is extremely important that all the existing evidence relating to the accident be available for use at trial. Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 May 28 12:59 PM-21CV001936 OF515 - N9 1. The Private-Interest Factors Weigh in Favor of Litigating in Oklahoma. Private interests to be considered include: The relative ease of access to sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses; possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to the action; and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive. Chambers, 35 Ohio St.3d at 126-27 (quoting Gilbert, 330 U.S. at 508 - 509). Because this accident occurred in Sequoyah County, Oklahoma, a great majority of the evidence will be unavailable to the parties or will be extremely difficult and expensive to obtain if the case is tried in Ohio. The impossibility of obtaining all the necessary evidence would cause substantial injustice to Defendants. First and foremost, the overwhelming majority of witnesses are located in Oklahoma or just across the border in Arkansas. Defendants have identified many witnesses they may want to testify live at trial, including e Debra Mabray P.O. Box 1024 305 Mabray Lane Muldrow, Oklahoma 74948 Distance: 13 miles from Sequoyah County District Court 842 miles from Franklin County Common Pleas Court Connection: Mabray was an eyewitness to the events just before the accident and saw the driver of the other vehicle at a dead stop in the road for no apparent reason. Her testimony may be dispositive of Defendants’ liability for the accident Byron Curtis, Ph.D., F-ABFT Oklahoma Office of the Chief Medical Examiner-Eastern Division 1115 West 17th Street Tulsa, Oklahoma 74107 Distance: 95 miles from Sequoyah County District Court 815 miles from Franklin County Common Pleas Court Connection: Dr. Curtis performed a toxicology screen on Decedent, which tested positive for methamphetamine and Tetrahydrocannabinol Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 May 28 12:59 PM-21CV001936 OF515 - N9 Sean Mize Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation 800 E. 2nd Street Edmond, Oklahoma 73034 Distance: 172 miles from Sequoyah County District Court 910 miles from Franklin County Common Pleas Court Connection: Mize conducted toxicology on a blood sample taken from Olow which reflected negative results for drugs and alcohol Trooper Russell Knoke Oklahoma Highway Patrol 220 NE 38th Terrace Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 Distance: 162 miles from Sequoyah County District Court 913 miles from Franklin County Common Pleas Court Connection: Trooper Knoke conducted a post-collision inspection of CEVA’s truck, finding no problems or violations. Trooper Tim Baker Oklahoma Highway Patrol 3600 north M.L. King Avenue Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73111 Distance: 160 miles from Sequoyah County District Court 911 miles from Franklin County Common Pleas Court Connection: Trooper Baker investigated the accident scene and determined that Olow was driving below the speed limit just before the accident. Jim Bexley Custard Insurance Adjusters, Inc 21 W. Mountain St. # 121 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Distance: 79 miles from Sequoyah County District Court 762 miles from Franklin County Common Pleas Court Connection: Bexley investigated the accident scene Trooper Sheldon Dobbs Oklahoma Highway Patrol 1806 North York Street Muskogee, Oklahoma 74403 Distance: 47 miles from Sequoyah County District Court 820 miles from Franklin County Common Pleas Court Connection: Trooper Dobbs investigated the accident scene. Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 May 28 12:59 PM-21CV001936 OF515 - O1 e Captain Damon Tucker Oklahoma Highway Patrol 3600 North M.L. King Avenue 160 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73111 Distance: 160 miles from Sequoyah County District Court 911 miles from Franklin County Common Pleas Court Connection: Captain Tucker investigated the accident scene Hog Creek Towing, and all its employees, agents, representatives, and custodians of records 2500 E. Redwood Avenue Sallisaw, Oklahoma 74955 Distance: 162 miles from Sequoyah County District Court 854 miles from Franklin County Common Pleas Court Connection: Hog Creek employees observed damage to, and towed, CEVA’s truck following the accident Freddy’s Wrecker, and all its employees, agents, representatives, and custodians of records 415 W. Ray Fine Boulevard 16 Roland, Oklahoma 74954 Distance: 16 miles from Sequoyah County District Court 838 miles from Franklin County Common Pleas Court Connection: Freddy’s wrecker employees observed damage to, and towed, the vehicle that Olow collided with. Defendants are entitled to call these witnesses to testify live at trial and to compel their attendance at trial through a subpoena. State v. Moes/e, 181 Ohio App.3d 696, 2009-Ohio-1326, PP 13 (10th Dist.). The testimony of each of them could prove to be vitally important in determining liability for Plaintiff's injuries. The testimony of these witnesses will prove that: The decedent caused the accident by abruptly stopping in the roadway; The decedent was driving impaired on methamphetamine and tetrahydrocannabinol; Olow was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol; Olow was traveling below the speed limit just before the accident; and The CEVA truck was not defective Each of these facts will contribute to absolving Defendants of liability for the accident; however, this Court’s subpoena power to compel witnesses to testify at trial does not reach out- of-state nonparties in Oklahoma, so if this case were to remain in the Franklin County Common Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 May 28 12:59 PM-21CV001936 OF515 - 02 Pleas Court, Defendants would be deprived of their right to call these witnesses to testify live at trial. See Gibsonburg Health, LLC v. Miniet, 2018-Ohio-3510, |P 8 (6th Dist.) (citing Chambers, 35 Ohio St.3d at 133). And until November 1, 2021, the date the Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act (“the Act”) becomes effective in Oklahoma, nonparty witnesses in Oklahoma may not be compelled to testify by deposition, either. Okla. ENR H.B. No. 2229 (2021). Even after the effective date, the Act will not affect out of state nonparty witnesses’ immunity to subpoenas to testify live at trial, as the Act covers only subpoenas requiring a person to attend a deposition, produce documents, or permit inspection of premises. /d. In Stidham, the court upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff’s case for forum non conveniens because “[t]he allegedly negligent operation of the vehicle took place in Indiana, and necessary witnesses would likely be beyond the subpoena powers of an Ohio court.” 2005-Ohio-4591, [P 8. Only a credible witness’s testimony is effective, and credibility cannot be accurately determined by listening to a recitation of deposition testimony. Live testimony is crucial to judge a witness’s credibility. Justice Resnick noted the importance of live testimony in stating that “the value of live testimony in assessing credibility cannot be doubted. For centuries, the personal appearance of witnesses before a factfinder has been deemed a comerstone of our judicial process and indispensable to the ascertainment of truth.” Arrington v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 109 Ohio St.3d 539, 2006-Ohio-3257, |P 76 (Resnick, J., dissenting). This Court must not deprive Defendants of such an “indispensable” right. Even if Defendants can secure deposition testimony from witnesses, it may not be admissible at trial. Deposition testimony is hearsay and must meet an exception in order to be admissible. Southard Supply, Inc. v. Anthem Contrs., Inc., 2017-Ohio-7298, P 28 (10th Dist.). To satisfy the hearsay exception for former testimony under Evid.R. 804(B)(1), Defendants would Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 May 28 12:59 PM-21CV001936 OF515 - 03 have to prove that the declarant is unavailable to testify at trial despite “reasonable efforts made in good faith to secure his presence.” State v. Keairns, 9 Ohio St.3d 228, 460 N.E.2d 245, syllabus 2 (1984). Showing that reasonable efforts to secure the declarant’s presence for trial were made requires sworn testimony and cannot be proven by hearsay. /d. at syllabus 2. In sum, this would require Defendants to issue subpoenas to witnesses to appear at trial, even though their efforts would almost certainly be futile as such subpoenas are unenforceable against out-of-state nonparty witnesses. Then, when the witnesses do not appear at trial, Defendants would be required to provide sworn testimony outlining their efforts to secure the witnesses’ presence in order to prove that they are unavailable. All this would be necessary just to introduce deposition testimony, which is not nearly as effective as live testimony. Defendants, already being deprived of their opportunity to call witnesses to testify live at trial, would be forced to jump through procedural hoops just to introduce deposition testimony. This entire process, which would come at the monetary and temporal expense of each party and this Court, would be avoided if the case were litigated in Oklahoma. In the unlikely event a witness voluntarily agrees to testify live at trial, their travel expenses would fall on Defendants, serving as a further injustice to be incurred. Defendants would be forced to pay the cost of the witnesses’ 800+ mile journey from Oklahoma to Columbus, Ohio, as well as their lodging expenses when they arrive. These additional expenses would be avoided if the case were litigated in Oklahoma. Finally, a jury view of the accident site or other physical evidence may be necessary but would be impractical if the case were litigated in Ohio. Roland, Oklahoma, where the accident occurred, is 839 miles from the Franklin County Common Pleas court and just 18 miles from the Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 May 28 12:59 PM-21CV001936 OF515 - 04 Sequoyah County Court House. As this case hinges on liability for the accident and Plaintiff's injuries, viewing the accident site may very well be necessary Each of the private interest factors weighs heavily in favor of litigating this case in Oklahoma. Defendants would suffer substantial injustice if they were forced to incur extra expenses and still not be able to present all the necessary evidence. Defendants’ opportunity to present their best evidence should not be subordinated to Plaintiff's choice of forum 2. The Public-Interest Factors Weigh in Favor of Litigating in Oklahoma. The public interests to be considered include: The administrative difficulties and delay to other litigants caused by congested court calendars, the imposition of jury duty upon the citizens of a community which has very little relation to the litigation, a local interest in having localized controversies decided at home, and the appropriateness of litigating a case in a forum familiar with the applicable law Chambers, 35 Ohio St.3d at 127. As with the private-interest factors, the public-interest factors weigh heavily in favor of litigating this case in Sequoyah County, Oklahoma The first public interest factor to consider is court congestion. The United States Census Bureau’s most recent population estimate for Franklin County, Ohio was 1,316,756.? The Franklin County Common Pleas court has 17 judges.’ This means that the ratio of Franklin County residents to Common Pleas judges is 77,456 to 1. The population estimate for the same time in Sequoyah County, Oklahoma is just 41,569.4 The Sequoyah County District Court has three judges.* Thus, the ratio of Sequoya County residents to District Court judges is 13,856 to 1—five and a half times less than the ratio in Franklin ? United States Census Bureau, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/franklincounty ohio,sequoyahcountyoklahoma/PST045219 5 https:/Avww.fccourts.org/242/Judges. * United States Census Bureau, Supra. n. 2. > https://seqcounty .com/district-judges.php. 10 Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 May 28 12:59 PM-21CV001936 OF515 - 05 County. This congestion in Franklin County, coupled with the burden of waiting until November 1, 2021 to be able to compel deposition testimony from witnesses in Oklahoma (as discussed above) indicates that the resolution of this case will take significantly longer if it is litigated in Franklin County, Ohio rather than in Sequoyah County, Oklahoma. Defendants should not be forced to bear the burden of defending themselves from Plaintiff’ s allegations any longer than necessary. Also, the citizens of Franklin County should not be forced to serve on a jury to determine liability for an automobile accident that occurred in another state. “Jury duty is a burden that ought not to be imposed upon the people of a community which has no relation to the litigation.” Gilbert, 330 U.S. at 508-09. To the contrary, communities have a local interest in having localized controversies decided at home. This case presents a classic localized controversy. Sequoyah County, Oklahoma has a local interest in keeping their roads safe and protecting all those who enter their jurisdiction from bodily harm Thus, a Sequoyah County jury should determine who was responsible for the alleged injuries in this case. Finally, Oklahoma law will govern this case, no matter where it is tried. As such, an Oklahoma court should preside over it. “[A] presumption is created that the law of the place of the injury controls unless another jurisdiction has a more significant relationship to the lawsuit.” Morgan v. Biro Mfg. Co., 15 Ohio St. 3d 339, 442, 474 N.E.2d 286 (1984). Courts consider five factors to determine whether another state has a more significant relationship to the lawsuit: (1) the place of the injury; (2) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred; (3) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties; (4) the place where the relationship between the parties, if any, is located; and (5) any factors under Section 6 [of the 11 Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 May 28 12:59 PM-21CV001936 OF515 - 06 Second Restatement of the Law of Conflicts*] which the court may deem relevant to the litigation. Id. Here, the presumption is that Oklahoma law will apply because that is where the alleged injury occurred. See id. Additionally, all but one factor weighs in favor of using Oklahoma law. Oklahoma was the place of the conduct causing the injury and of the injury itself. It is also where the relationship between the parties is located. Plaintiff and Defendants’ only connection is through the accident that occurred in Oklahoma. The sole factor weighing in favor of applying Ohio law is that Plaintiffis domiciled in Ohio. But this single factor is not sufficient to outweigh the multiple factors in favor of using Oklahoma law, especially against the backdrop of the presumption that the law of the place of the injury controls. See Walker v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 2018-Ohio-1810, § 21 (“There are no alternative presumptions in the choice of law analysis.”) Because Oklahoma law will govern, Oklahoma trial and appellate courts will be able to handle the case more efficiently. This strengthens Oklahoma’s interest in having the case heard in its courts Like the Private-interest factors, each of the public-interest factors weigh in favor of litigating this case in Oklahoma. Overall judicial economy would be best served by © These factors include: (a) the needs of the interstate and international systems, (b) the relevant policies of the forum, (c) the relevant policies of other interested states and the relative interests of those states in the determination of the particular issue, (d) the protection of justified expectations, (e) the basic policies underlying the particular field of law, (f) certainty, predictability and uniformity of result, and (g) ease in the determination and application of law to be applied. 12 Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 May 28 12:59 PM-21CV001936 OF515 - O7 dismissing this case and requiring it to be litigated in Sequoyah County, Oklahoma. As all the public- and private-interest factors to be considered show that a more convenient forum is available, the doctrine of forum non conveniens requires this case to be dismissed. See Chambers, 35 Ohio St.3d at 127 3. CONCLUSION The most convenient resolution of this matter—for the parties and witnesses, as well as for the public as a whole—requires that this case be litigated where the accident occurred, in Sequoyah County, Oklahoma, rather than in Ohio. Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request this Court dismiss this case based on forum non conveniens. Respectfully submitted. [of Kein. Foley Kevin P. Foley (0059949) REMINGER CO., LPA 200 Civic Center Drive, Suite 800 Columbus, OH 43215 Direct: (614) 232-2416 Fax: (614) 232-2410 Email: kfoies inger Counsel for Defendants CE| Freight LLC fk/a CEVA Ground U.S. LP and Abdinor Salad Olow 13 Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 May 28 12:59 PM-21CV001936 OF515 - 08 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies the foregoing document was submitted for filing via the Court’s e-Filing system, and that service of the foregoing document was made via the Court’s e-Filing System on the 28th day of May, 2021, to: Nathan E. Colombo, Esq. (#0098343) Travis T. Mohler, Esq. (#0083365) Colombo Law 4016 Townsfair Way, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Email: Nathan@@colombolaw. com Attorneys for Plaintiff Abdirizak Abdullahi [of Kein. Foley Kevin P. Foley (0059949) 14