Preview
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Jul 28 10:59 AM-23CV003374
0G481 - H4
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO
AMANDA BOWLING,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 23 CV 3374
-Vs- Judge Page
MALACHI CALLENDER, e? al.,
Defendants,
DECISION AND ENTRY ON DEFENDANT MALACHI CALLENDER’S MOTION TO
TRANSFER VENUE
This case is before the Court on Defendant Malachi Callender’s (Defendant) Motion to
Transfer Venue. The issues before the Court are whether: (1) Defendant Ohio Department of
Medicaid (ODM) is a nominal party in this case; and (2) venue is proper in Franklin County Ohio.
For the reasons set forth in this opinion, the Court denies the Defendant’s motion.
I, FACTS
On June 24, 2021 Defendant and Plaintiff Amanda Bowling (Plaintiff) were involved in an
automobile collision on Water Street in Ross County Ohio. (Complaint, J 1). Plaintiff alleges that
the Defendant acted negligently by driving his vehicle into the lane of the vehicle within which
the Plaintiff was a passenger. /d. at 4. Plaintiff's complaint contains a claim for negligence against
Defendant. /d. at 3-7. It also includes a claim against ODM which alleges that ODM paid her
medical bills and may have an interest in this matter. /d. at 8.
There is no dispute that the Plaintiff, Defendant, and all other witnesses in this case live in
Ross County Ohio. (Defendant Mot., pg. 3).
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Jul 28 10:59 AM-23CV003374
0G481 - H4
IL ANALYSIS
The Defendant argues that because ODM has a “super lien,” its involvement is peripheral
to liability on the automobile collision, and its status as a party does not confer venue upon this
Court. /d. at 2-4. Essentially, the Defendant argues that ODM is a nominal party. The Plaintiff
responds that ODM is more than a nominal party because it has a statutory lien or right to
reimbursement in this case. (Plaintiff Memo. Contra, pg. 3: Complaint, { 8).
The proponent of a motion to change venue bears the burden of demonstrating both that
the current venue is improper and that the requested venue is proper under Civ.R. 3(C). Civ.R.
3(D)(1); Matthews v. D’Amore, 10th Dist. Franklin No. OSAP-1318, 2006-Ohio-5745, { 58.
3(C)(1)-B), (12)
Venue is proper under Civil Rule 3(C) in any one or more of the following counties: (1)
The county where the defendant resides; (2) The county in which the defendant has his principal
place of business; (3) A county in which the defendant conducted activity that gave rise to the
claim for relief. Civ.R. 3(C)(1)-(3). The alternative sections of Civ.R. 3(C) do not provide a
sequential preference for priority among multiple permissible forums. Instead, the first nine
numerical provisions within Civ.R. 3(C) are on equal status, and any court specified therein may
be a proper venue. Matthews at ] 57 and LaBounty v. Big 3 Automotive, 6" Dist. Ottawa No. OT-
18-022, 2019-Ohio-1919, § 29, citing Morrison vy. Steiner, 32 Ohio St.2d 86, 89, 290 N.E.2d 841
(1972). If multiple courts have proper venue, a plaintiff may choose where to bring the action.
Mathews at § 57
There is no dispute here that: (1) the Defendant lives in Ross County; (2) the collision
occurred in Ross County; and (3) ODM’s principle place of business is in Franklin County Ohio.
Accordingly, venue is proper in Franklin County under Civ.R. 3(C)(2) unless ODM is a
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Jul 28 10:59 AM-23CV003374
0G481 - H4
nominal party under Civ.R. 3(F), which states
Venue: multiple defendants and multiple claims for relief. In any
action, brought by one or more plaintiffs against one or more
defendants involving one or more claims for relief, the forum shall
be deemed a proper forum, and venue in the forum shall be proper,
if the venue is proper as to any one party other than a nominal party,
or as to any one claim for relief.
Neither the dismissal of any claim nor of any party except an
indispensable party shall affect the jurisdiction of the court over the
remaining parties.
(Emphasis added) Civ.R. 3(F). A nominal party is one whose presence in the action is either: (1)
merely formal; or, (2) unnecessary for a just and proper resolution of the claim(s) presented. State
ex rel. Yeaples v. Gall, 141 Ohio St. 3d 234, 2014-Ohio-4724, 23 N.E.3d 1077, § 22; Smith v.
Inland Paperboard & Packaging, Inc., 11" Dist. Portage No. 2007-P-0088, 2008-Ohio-6984,
41-42.
ODM is not a nominal party because the Plaintiff has filed a claim for subrogation against
it. (Complaint, § 8). That claim must be adjudicated for a full resolution of the Plaintiff’s case.
Because ODM is not a nominal party, venue is proper in Franklin County Ohio. Therefore,
Defendant’s motion to transfer venue is DENIED.
IH. CONCLUSION
After considering the positions of the parties, the Court finds that the Defendant’s motion
to transfer venue is not well-taken, and it is DENIED
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Copies to all parties
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Jul 28 10:59 AM-23CV003374
0G481 - H4
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
Date: 07-28-2023
Case Title: AMANDA BOWLING -VS- MALACHI CALLENDER ET AL
Case Number: 23CV003374
Type: ORDER
It Is So Ordered.
b>
/s/ Judge Jaiza Page
Electronically signed on 2023-Jul-28 page 4 of 4
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Jul 28 10:59 AM-23CV003374
0G481 - H4
Court Disposition
Case Number: 23CV003374
Case Style: AMANDA BOWLING -VS- MALACHI CALLENDER ET
Motion Tie Off Information:
1. Motion CMS Document Id: 23CV0033742023-06-1499980000
Document Title: 06-14-2023- MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE -
DEFENDANT: MALACHI CALLENDER
Disposition: MOTION DENIED
Preview
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Jul 28 10:59 AM-23CV003374 0G481 - H4 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO AMANDA BOWLING, Plaintiff, Case No. 23 CV 3374 -Vs- Judge Page MALACHI CALLENDER, e? al., Defendants, DECISION AND ENTRY ON DEFENDANT MALACHI CALLENDER’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE This case is before the Court on Defendant Malachi Callender’s (Defendant) Motion to Transfer Venue. The issues before the Court are whether: (1) Defendant Ohio Department of Medicaid (ODM) is a nominal party in this case; and (2) venue is proper in Franklin County Ohio. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, the Court denies the Defendant’s motion. I, FACTS On June 24, 2021 Defendant and Plaintiff Amanda Bowling (Plaintiff) were involved in an automobile collision on Water Street in Ross County Ohio. (Complaint, J 1). Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant acted negligently by driving his vehicle into the lane of the vehicle within which the Plaintiff was a passenger. /d. at 4. Plaintiff's complaint contains a claim for negligence against Defendant. /d. at 3-7. It also includes a claim against ODM which alleges that ODM paid her medical bills and may have an interest in this matter. /d. at 8. There is no dispute that the Plaintiff, Defendant, and all other witnesses in this case live in Ross County Ohio. (Defendant Mot., pg. 3). Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Jul 28 10:59 AM-23CV003374 0G481 - H4 IL ANALYSIS The Defendant argues that because ODM has a “super lien,” its involvement is peripheral to liability on the automobile collision, and its status as a party does not confer venue upon this Court. /d. at 2-4. Essentially, the Defendant argues that ODM is a nominal party. The Plaintiff responds that ODM is more than a nominal party because it has a statutory lien or right to reimbursement in this case. (Plaintiff Memo. Contra, pg. 3: Complaint, { 8). The proponent of a motion to change venue bears the burden of demonstrating both that the current venue is improper and that the requested venue is proper under Civ.R. 3(C). Civ.R. 3(D)(1); Matthews v. D’Amore, 10th Dist. Franklin No. OSAP-1318, 2006-Ohio-5745, { 58. 3(C)(1)-B), (12) Venue is proper under Civil Rule 3(C) in any one or more of the following counties: (1) The county where the defendant resides; (2) The county in which the defendant has his principal place of business; (3) A county in which the defendant conducted activity that gave rise to the claim for relief. Civ.R. 3(C)(1)-(3). The alternative sections of Civ.R. 3(C) do not provide a sequential preference for priority among multiple permissible forums. Instead, the first nine numerical provisions within Civ.R. 3(C) are on equal status, and any court specified therein may be a proper venue. Matthews at ] 57 and LaBounty v. Big 3 Automotive, 6" Dist. Ottawa No. OT- 18-022, 2019-Ohio-1919, § 29, citing Morrison vy. Steiner, 32 Ohio St.2d 86, 89, 290 N.E.2d 841 (1972). If multiple courts have proper venue, a plaintiff may choose where to bring the action. Mathews at § 57 There is no dispute here that: (1) the Defendant lives in Ross County; (2) the collision occurred in Ross County; and (3) ODM’s principle place of business is in Franklin County Ohio. Accordingly, venue is proper in Franklin County under Civ.R. 3(C)(2) unless ODM is a Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Jul 28 10:59 AM-23CV003374 0G481 - H4 nominal party under Civ.R. 3(F), which states Venue: multiple defendants and multiple claims for relief. In any action, brought by one or more plaintiffs against one or more defendants involving one or more claims for relief, the forum shall be deemed a proper forum, and venue in the forum shall be proper, if the venue is proper as to any one party other than a nominal party, or as to any one claim for relief. Neither the dismissal of any claim nor of any party except an indispensable party shall affect the jurisdiction of the court over the remaining parties. (Emphasis added) Civ.R. 3(F). A nominal party is one whose presence in the action is either: (1) merely formal; or, (2) unnecessary for a just and proper resolution of the claim(s) presented. State ex rel. Yeaples v. Gall, 141 Ohio St. 3d 234, 2014-Ohio-4724, 23 N.E.3d 1077, § 22; Smith v. Inland Paperboard & Packaging, Inc., 11" Dist. Portage No. 2007-P-0088, 2008-Ohio-6984, 41-42. ODM is not a nominal party because the Plaintiff has filed a claim for subrogation against it. (Complaint, § 8). That claim must be adjudicated for a full resolution of the Plaintiff’s case. Because ODM is not a nominal party, venue is proper in Franklin County Ohio. Therefore, Defendant’s motion to transfer venue is DENIED. IH. CONCLUSION After considering the positions of the parties, the Court finds that the Defendant’s motion to transfer venue is not well-taken, and it is DENIED IT IS SO ORDERED. Copies to all parties Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Jul 28 10:59 AM-23CV003374 0G481 - H4 Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Date: 07-28-2023 Case Title: AMANDA BOWLING -VS- MALACHI CALLENDER ET AL Case Number: 23CV003374 Type: ORDER It Is So Ordered. b> /s/ Judge Jaiza Page Electronically signed on 2023-Jul-28 page 4 of 4 Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Jul 28 10:59 AM-23CV003374 0G481 - H4 Court Disposition Case Number: 23CV003374 Case Style: AMANDA BOWLING -VS- MALACHI CALLENDER ET Motion Tie Off Information: 1. Motion CMS Document Id: 23CV0033742023-06-1499980000 Document Title: 06-14-2023- MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE - DEFENDANT: MALACHI CALLENDER Disposition: MOTION DENIED