Legal Document: THERON OLIVER Vs TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA VS.TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA ET AL

On August 08, 2023 a MEMO CONTRA FILEDNAME:THERON OLIVERPLNTIF/DEFNDT IND:PTO MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE was filed involving a dispute between and for PERSONAL INJURY in the District Court of Franklin County.

Preview
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 22 1:03 PM-23CV005620
06553 - Q99

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO

THERON OLIVER, CASE NUMBER: 23 CV 005620

Plaintiff, JUDGE: CARL A. AVENI

vs. PLAINTIFF’S MEMO CONTRA TO
DEFENDANT, TA OPERATING
TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA, et al., LLC’S, MOTION TO CHANGE
VENUE
Defendants.

Defendant, TA Operating LLC’s, motion to transfer venue should be denied because 1)

Defendant, Ohio Department of Medicaid’s (hereinafter “ODM”), principal place of business is

located in Franklin County; 2) Plaintiff has brought a declaratory judgment action against

Defendant, ODM, concerning a controversy between these two parties involving a health

insurance lien, amount of which is presently unknown, that needs to be decided by this Court;

and 3) numerous Courts from Franklin County and around Ohio have held that lien holders

(health insurance carriers, medical payments carriers, and Medicaid) in personal injury litigation

are not a “nominal party.”

I SUMMARY OF THE FACTS

On or about August 4, 2022, at or around 9:16 a.m., Plaintiff, Theron Oliver, in the

exercise of due care, was a customer of TravelCenters of America located at 940 U.S. 42 N.E.,

London, OH 43140.

At the same date, time, and place, Defendant and employee of TravelCenters of America,

Larry D. Dever, intentionally, willfully, maliciously, and/or in the alternative, negligently,

carelessly, and recklessly shoved Plaintiff.

-1-
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 22 1:03 PM-23CV005620
0G553 - R1

Thereafter, Defendant and employee of TravelCenters of America, Brad E. Thomas,

without warning intentionally, willfully, maliciously, and/or in the alternative, negligently,

carelessly, and recklessly performed a maneuver on Plaintiff, specifically by violently applying a

choke hold on Plaintiff causing Plaintiff to sustain serious injuries.

While Plaintiff was in the choke hold being applied by Defendant, Brad E. Thomas,

Defendant, Larry D, Dever, then intentionally, willfully, maliciously, and/or in the alternative,

negligently, carelessly, and recklessly began to strike Plaintiff, specifically by punching him in

the face.

Mr. Oliver was and is insured by Defendant, ODM. It is undisputed that ODM’s principal

place of business is located in Franklin County. It is also undisputed that ODM claims an interest

in this matter, the amount of which is presently unknown (see Exhibit G attached hereto). Mr.

Oliver has received extensive medical treatment, including surgery approximately three weeks

ago, to which Medicaid is responsible for paying. Therefore, although unknown at this time,

ODM will likely assert a substantial subrogation lien given the extent of Mr. Oliver’s treatment.

There is a dispute between Plaintiff and Defendant, ODM, regarding whether or not ODM is

entitled to receive any money back in the event Plaintiff is successful in his personal injury claim

against Defendants, Larry D. Dever, Brad E. Thomas, and TravelCenters of America. It is

Plaintiff's position that Defendant, ODM, is not entitled to enforce some or all of any lien it

claims it has against any settlement or judgment Plaintiff may obtain from or against Defendants

Thomas, Dever, and TravelCenters. Therefore, Plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action

against Defendant, ODM, to resolve this controversy, and the Complaint was properly filed in

Franklin County, the location of ODM’s principal place of business.

-2-
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 22 1:03 PM-23CV005620
0G553 - R2

I. DEFENDANT, TA OPERATING LLC’S, MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE
SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE FRANKLIN COUNTY IS A PROPER VENUE
FOR THIS CASE.

Ohio Civil Rule 3(B) states the following concerning venue:

(B) Venue: where proper

Any action may be venued, commenced, and decided in any court in any
county, Proper venue lies in any one or more of the following counties:

(1) The county in which the defendant resides;

(2) The county in which the defendant has his or her principal place of business.

[Emphasis added.]

In Morrison v. Steiner (1972), 32 Ohio St. 86, 89, the Ohio Supreme Court stated that

“the first nine provisions of Civ.R. 3(B) are on equal status, and any court specified therein

may be a proper and initial place of venue.” (Emphasis added). The Eighth Appellate District

has also held that each of the first nine options available under the rule are proper and on equal

standing. Specifically, in Varketta v. General Motors Corp., 34 Ohio App. 2d 1; 295 N.E.2d 219

(1973), the court stated “Civil Rule 3(B) establishes a system of priorities. The first nine

provisions of 3(B) are alternatives, and each may be a proper basis for venue, but they do not

have to be followed in any order. Plaintiff has a choice where the action will be brought if any of

the counties specified in C.R. 3(B)(1) through (9) are a proper forum under the facts of the case.”

The court went on to say “in other words, if there are multiple plaintiffs and/or multiple

defendants and venue is proper as to any one or more of the parties in any county under Civil

Rule 3(B)(1) through (9), that becomes the proper forum. A party must first look to Civil Rule

3(B)(1) through (9) and if venue is proper as to any one party it is proper as to all parties.”

Similarly, the Sixth Appellate District in Rusk Indust. v. Alexander, 2002-Ohio-2171,

-3-
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 22 1:03 PM-23CV005620
0G553 - R3

held that the plaintiff has a choice of any of the nine options and all may be proper. “Plaintiff has

a choice where the action will be brought if any of the counties specified in Civ.R. 3(B)(1)

through (9) are a proper forum under the facts of the case.” /d. at 11. See also, Williams v. Jarvis

(Cuyahoga Ct. App. 1999), 1999 Ohio App. Lexis 1979. Moreover, the Seventh Appellate

District held that all nine of the first provisions are equal and the Plaintiff can freely choose

among them, stating that “venue is properly established when the Plaintiff chooses a court in any

county enumerated in the first nine provisions of Civ.R. 3(B). The provisions have equal standing

and a plaintiff may choose among them with unfettered discretion.” /d. at 6. Therefore, it was

proper for Plaintiff, Theron Oliver, to file this lawsuit in Franklin County because it is

undisputed that Defendant, ODM’s, principal place of business is located in Franklin County.

Defendant, TA Operating LLC, agrees that the above stated law is correct but argues it is

not applicable in this matter because Defendant, ODM, is a “nominal party.” However, numerous

Courts in Franklin County and from around Ohio disagree and have ruled lien holders (including

ODM) are not a nominal party when determining if venue is proper in personal injury litigation.

For instance, in Mike Casarez, et al., v. Robert Hodge, et al., Cuyahoga County Court of

Common Pleas, Case No, CV-11-756249, the plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle crash that

took place in Defiance County, Ohio. /d. A complaint was filed in Cuyahoga County because

there was a controversy between the plaintiff and defendant, Progressive Insurance, concerning

the enforceability of a $1,000 medical payments lien. /d. The trial court judge denied the

defendant’s motion to transfer venue to Defiance County because Progressive Insurance’s

principal place of business is located in Cuyahoga County, /d. A copy of the trial court’s entry is

attached as Exhibit A.

Additionally, the same result was reached in Sandra L. Moore v. Diane L. Gentile, et al.,
4.
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 22 1:03 PM-23CV005620
0G553 - R4

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No, CV-15-845045. In Moore, the plaintiff was

injured in a motor vehicle crash that took place in Ashtabula County, Ohio. /d. A complaint was

filed in Cuyahoga County because there was a controversy between the plaintiff and Defendant,

Bristol West Insurance Company, concerning the enforceability of a $5,000 medical payments

lien, /d. The trial court judge denied the Defendant’s motion to transfer venue to Ashtabula

County because Bristol West’s principal place of business is located in Cuyahoga County. Id. A

copy of that trial court’s entry is attached as Exhibit B.

The same result was reached concerning a private health insurance carrier’s lien in

Senters v. Advanced Urology Assoc., Inc., et al., Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas,

Case No. CV-08-653368. The plaintiff filed suit against his health insurance carrier which was

located in Cuyahoga County because there was a controversy between him and his health

insurance carrier concerning the enforceability of the lien. /d. The trial court held venue was

proper in Cuyahoga County even though the medical malpractice took place in a different county.

Id. A copy of the trial court judge’s decision is attached as Exhibit C.

A different trial court judge reached the same conclusion concerning a Medical Mutual of

Ohio health insurance lien in Cory Dyer, Administrator v. Michael Malone, M.D., et al.,

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CV-09-689459. The plaintiff brought a

declaratory judgment action against Medical Mutual of Ohio in a complaint that was filed in

Cuyahoga County because that is where its principal place of business was located. /d. The trial

court held venue was proper in Cuyahoga County even though the medical malpractice took

place in Hancock County. /d. A copy of the trial court’s decision is attached as Exhibit D.

In Major Wright, Jr. v. Darren L. Harvey, et al., Franklin County Court of Common

Pleas, Case No. 15-CV-7804, and Mary Doughman, et al., v. Michael Cook, II, et al., Franklin
5.
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 22 1:03 PM-23CV005620
0G553 - R5

County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 16-CV-003359, the same result was reached in regard

to Medicaid liens held by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS). In both

cases, the plaintiffs were injured in motor vehicle crashes that took place in counties other than

Franklin County. /d. The plaintiffs’ complaints, however, were filed in Franklin County because

there was a controversy between the plaintiffs and ODJFS concerning the enforceability of the

Medicaid liens. /d. This Court denied the Defendants’ motions to transfer venue to the

counties where the car wrecks took place because the principal place of business for

ODJFS was located in Franklin County. /d. This Honorable Court found that ODJFS was not

“nominal party” because it is the real party in interest as to any medical payments that were

made for the plaintiff's injuries from the crashes. /d. A copy of this trial courts’ entries are

attached as Exhibits E and F.

Like in these cases, this Court should similarly deny Defendant, TA Operating LLC’s,

motion to transfer venue to Madison County. Defendant, ODM’s, principal place of business is

located in Franklin County and it is not a nominal party. It has an interest in this litigation (see

Exhibit G attached hereto). Therefore, ODM stands in the shoes of Plaintiff related to payments

made pertaining to his medical bills. ODM is a real party in interest and is necessary for just and

proper resolution of the claim being presented in this case. Furthermore, ODM may make its

cross-claim(s) against Defendants, Larry D. Dever, Brad E. Thomas, and/or TravelCenters of

America.

At best, Defendant, TA Operating LLC, is arguing Madison County might be a more

convenient venue for this case. But in State ex rel. Smith v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common

Pleas (2005), 106 Ohio St. 3d 151, 2005-Ohio-4103, 832 N.E.2d 1206, the Ohio Supreme Court

-6-
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 22 1:03 PM-23CV005620
0G553 - R6

re-affirmed its long standing rule that the doctrine of forum non-conveniens does not apply

within Ohio’s borders so long as the original choice of venue was proper under Rule 3(B). The

Court stated the following:

“In Chambers, we recognized that forum non conveniens applies to
cases in which the more convenient forum is in another state or
another country. /d., 35 Ohio St.3d at 132, 519 N.E.2d 370
("Civ.R. 3 does not expressly preclude the application of the
common-law doctrine forum non conveniens in interstate or [*154]
international situations not covered by subsection (D), whether or
not venue is 'proper' in Ohio"). We rejected its application,
however, to intrastate transfers from one county to another county.
See State ex rel. YJOIIS v. Zaleski (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 623,
624, 1996 Ohio 267, 665 N.E.2d 212, quoting Chambers, 35 Ohio
St.3d at 132, 519 N.E.2d 370 ("forum non conveniens may not be
applied to a transfer of a properly venued action in an Ohio county
to another Ohio county, since Civ.R. 3(C)(4) limits intrastate
transfers to transfers to 'an adjoining county*** "when it Appears
that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the county in which
the suit is pending’‘’). Civ.R. 3, governing venue, recognizes
that "transfer of a case from one proper venue to another
proper venue within the state for means of convenience is
unnecessary in a geographically small state such as Ohio, and
that any inconvenience to witnesses in such a situation could be
remedied by the use of depositions." (Emphasis sic.) Chambers,
35 Ohio St.3d at 131, 519 N.E.2d 370; see, generally, 1 Klein &
Darling, Civil Practice (2004) 223-224, Section 3:68 (“If forum
non conveniens were to be held available intrastate, it would
conflict with * * * fundamental principles of Civ.R. 3(B) * * *"),”
(Emphasis added.)

Accordingly, Franklin County is proper in this case because Defendant, ODM’s, principal

place of business is located in this county. Therefore, this case should remain in Franklin County

so that the controversy between Theron Oliver and ODM, a Franklin County Defendant, can be

heard and resolved by this Court.

iil. CONCLUSION

In summary, Ohio law states that in cases where there are multiple defendants, the
-7-
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 22 1:03 PM-23CV005620
0G553 - R7

plaintiff can choose to file suit in any of the counties where they have venue under Ohio Civil

Rule 3(B). The first nine subsections of this rule have equal standing and serve as the basis for

proper venue as to all defendants. Once proper venue is established, the doctrine of forum non

conveniens is not applicable to intrastate transfers from one county to another county. Further,

numerous courts around Ohio have ruled that lien holders, like Defendant ODM, are not nominal

parties in personal injury litigation. Therefore, Defendant, TA Operating LLC’s, motion to

transfer venue should be denied and this case should remain in Franklin County.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Dylan O. Knisley
Dylan O. Knisley (0093028)
Attorney for Plaintiff
1111 Dublin Road
Columbus, Ohio 43215
P: (614) 486-9503; F: 614-486-7059
E: ClientServices@KnisleyLaw.com

-8-
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 22 1:03 PM-23CV005620
0G553 - R8

OCA 70!
LAA 9
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHTO
MIKE U. CASAREZ, ET AL Case No: CV-11-756249
Plaintiff
Judge: PETER J CORRIGAN

ROBERT E. HODGE, ET AL
Defendant

JOURNAL ENTRY

(bBo
DEFENDANT JOSHUA L, MEYER'S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE IS DENIED.

Judge Signature 08/29/2011

EXHIBIT

8/29/2011
RECEIVED FOR FILING
08/30/2011 11:52:18
; CLBEC
GERALD E. FUERST, CLERK
Page 1 of
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 22 1:03 PM-23CV005620
06553 - R9

C0 A
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
SANDRA L. MOORE Case No: CV-15-845045
Plaintiff
Judge: NANCY A FUERST.

DIANE L. GENTILE, ET AL.
Defendant

JOURNAL ENTRY

DEFENDANT 06/16/2015 DIANE L, GENTILE'S MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE IS DENIED. CASE PROCEEDS AS
SCHEDULED.

Mauetat
Judge Signature 06/23/2015

EXHIBIT

06/23/2015

sl
RECEIVED KOR FILING.
i i ie18:14Matien N
Page | of |
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 22 1:03 PM-23CV005620
06553 - RL

A
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
DAVID SENTERS ETAL Case No: CV-08-653368
Plaintiff
Judge: JOHN P O'DONNELL

ADVANCED UROLOGY ASSOC. INC. ETAL
Defendant

JOURNAL ENTRY

DEFENDANTS ADVANCED UROLOGY ASSOCIATES INC, JOSEPH DANKOFF AND JOHN ZHAO'S MOTION TO DISMISS
BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIMS (ANNA MOORE CARULAS 0037161, FILED
04/15/2008) IS DENIED.
DEFENDANTS JOSEPH DANKOFF AND JOHN ZHAO'S MOTION TO DISMISS BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH
OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIMS (ANNA MOORE CARULAS 0037161, FILED 04/17/2008), IS DENIED.
WHILE THESE CLAIMS MAY BE SUBJECT TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AFTER APPROPRIATE
DISCOVERY, THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO A MOTION TO DISMISS SINCE THE CONDUCT CLAIMED TO HAVE
BREACHED THE CONTRACT OR FIDUCIARY DUTY MAY PROVE TO BE SEPARATE FROM THE CONDUCT CLAIMED
TO CONSTITUTE MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE
DEFENDANTS ADVANCED UROLOGY ASSOCIATES INC, JOSEPH DANKOFF AND JOHN ZHAO'S MOTION TO
TRANSFER VENUE (ANNA MOORE CARULAS 0037161, FILED 04/15/2008) IS DENIED.
DEFENDANT JOSEPH DANKOFF'S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE (ANNA MOORE CARULAS 0037161, FILED
04/17/2008) IS DENIED.
THE COURT CANNOT INFER BY THE FAILURE TO INCLUDE QUALCHOICE AS A DEFENDANT IN THE FIRST FILING
OF THE MALPRACTICE LAWSUIT AGAINST THE OTHER DEFENDANTS THAT THE PLAINTIFF'S ASSERTION OF A.
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT QUALCHOICE IN THIS CASE IS "CLEARLY A SUBTERFUGE" FOR
“SOLE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING VENUE IN CUYAHOGA COUNTY." EVEN IF THAT IS THE PLAINTIFF'S
MOTIVATION, IT APPEARS THAT QUALCHOICE IS LEGITIMATELY A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT DEFENDANT ON
A CONTRACT IT HAS WITH THE PLAINTIFF(S) AND THE CIVIL RULES DO NOT PRECLUDE ASSERTING ALL OF THE
PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS IN ONE LAWSUIT.

Judge Signature 05/19/2008

EXHIBIT

C
05/19/2008
RECEIVED FOR FILING
05/20/2008 09:48:05
By: CLTMP
GERALD E. FUERST, CLERK
Page | of |
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 22 1:03 PM-23CV005620
292 a

‘a pe.
he

CORY DYER ADMINISTRATOR
8.
] MM
720938
os
)

| First-Class Mail
LU. S. Postage Paid |
{ Cleveland, OH
1

1
MICHAEL MALONEM.D. . ET.AL -- - \ Permit No. 1962 |

JUDGE: SHIRLEY STRICKLAND SAFFOLD
ROOM: 21B JUSTICE CENTER 1
DOCKET DATE: 07/02/2009 \ FROM:
DEFENDANTS JOINT MOTION TO REALIGN | CUYAHOGA COUNTY - COURT OF COMMON PLEAS -
DEFENDANT, MEDICAL MUTUAL OF OHIO, AS At EVERST - CLERK COURTS...
OF
INVOLUNTARY PLAINTIFF AND TO TRANSFER VENUE | JUSTICE CENTER - COURT TOWER
TO HANCOCK COUNTY IS HEREBY DENIED IN ITS. | $200 ONTARIO ST
ENTIRETY. | CLEVELAND, OX 44113,
CLDLJ 07/02/2009 i ————
NOTICE ISSUED.
TO:
SCOTT ELLIOT SMITH
6235 ENTERPRISE COURT
DUBLIN, OH 43016

Vbosbdl Mbassssilbstbaaathahitlstredde Hi
i_-. -— ee

cee _

EXHIBIT

D
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 22 1:03 PM-23CV005620
06553 - R1
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2015 Nov 05 2:14 PM-15CV007804
0c759 - D16

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO
CIVIL DIVISION

Major Wright, Jr.,
Plaintiff, Case No. 1SCV-7804

“ye JUDGE SERROTT

Darren L. Harvey, et al.,

Defendants.

DECISION AND ENTRY DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTIONS TO TRANSFER
VENUE AND DENYING DEFENDANT MONTGOMERY COUNTY’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
AND
ENTRY GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT TO ADD
THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AS PARTIES

Rendered this 6" day of November, 2015

SERROTT, J.

I RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This personal injury action stems from a motor vehicle accident between Plaintiff and

Defendant Darren Harvey, who was allegedly operating his vehicle within the course and scope

of his employment with the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department. Plaintiff's initial lawsuit

named Defendant Harvey, the Montgomery County Sheriff's Department, and the Ohio

Department of Job and Family Services (“ODJFS”) as parties. The Complaint identifies ODJFS’

address as being in Columbus, Ohio, while setting forth Dayton, Ohio addresses for all other

parties.

ODJFS was included for the reason that it “may have paid some medical bills and/or

compensation on behalf” of Plaintiff. (Original Complaint, 23). Plaintiff “disputes the

validity and amount of any subrogation/reimbursement interest, if any” that ODJFS may claim

and demands that ODJFS appear and assert its right to subrogation or be forever barred from

EXHIBIT

E
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 22 1:03 PM-23CV005620
0G553 - R1
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2015 Nov 05 2:14 PM-15CV007804
OC759 -

asserting the same. (Id. at 24). ODJFS filed an Answer admitting “it has paid on the behalf of

Plaintiff, Major Wright, Jr., a Medicaid recipient, in an amount to be determined for medical

services and care as a result of the accident” alleged in the Complaint. ODJFS further filed a

Cross-Claim asserting it is entitled to recover from Defendants any amounts expended to

Plaintiff for medical services.

The Montgomery County Sheriff's Department filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds

that it is not sui juris. This prompted Plaintiff to seek leave to file an amended complaint

substituting Montgomery County as the proper defendant. Although this Motion has not yet

been ruled upon, Montgomery County recently filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that it is also

not sui juris, and is instead held accountable through its elected representatives, ie. the

Montgomery County Commissioners.

Defendant Harvey and Montgomery County have also moved the Court to transfer venue

of the Complaint and Cross-Claim to Montgomery County. They argue that that this is the

county where the accident occurred and where the primary Defendants reside. They contend

ODJFS is a nominal party, and therefore, ODJFS’ principal place of business cannot be used as a

basis for establishing venue in Franklin County.

Tl. STANDARD OF REVIEW, RELEVANT LAW, AND ANALYSIS

A. Motions to Transfer Venue

“In a motion for change of venue, the moving party bears the burden of proof.”

Butler County Joint Voc. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Andrews, 12th Dist. No. CA2006-10-245,

2007-Ohio-5896, at 416. When selecting the proper forum for a lawsuit, Civ. R. 3(B) provides in

relevant part:

Proper venue lies in any one or more of the following counties:
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 22 1:03 PM-23CV005620
0G553 - R1
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2015 Nov 05 2:14 PM-15CV007804
OC759 - 18

(1) The county in which the defendant resides;
(2) The county in which the defendant has his or her principal
place of business;
(3) A county in which the defendant conducted activity that gave
rise to the claim for relief;

(6) The county in which all or part of the claim for relief arose;

Additionally, Civ. R. 3(E) provides:

{iJn 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.

Thus, Defendants are correct that the address of a nominal party cannot be used to

establish venue. “[F]or purposes of Civ. R. 3(E), it may be said that 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.” Swith v. Inland Paperboard & Packaging, Inc.,

11th Dist. No. 2007-P-0088, 2008-Ohio-6984, 741.

As it is apparent this matter was filed in Franklin County solely due to the presence of

ODJFS, the issue is whether ODJFS is a nominal party. R.C. 5160.37(A) provides that “[a]

medical assistance recipient’s enrollment in a medical assistance program gives an automatic

right of recovery to the department of medicaid and a county department of job and family

services against the liability of a third party for the cost of medical assistance paid on behalf of

the recipient.” Therefore, “[w]hen an action or claim is brought against a third party by a

medical assistance recipient, any payment, settlement or compromise of the action or claim, or
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 22 1:03 PM-23CV005620
0G553 - R1
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2015 Nov 05 2:14 PM-15CV007804
0c759 - D19

any court award or judgment, is subject to the recovery right of the department of medicaid or

county department.” R.C, 5160.37(A).

Additionally, pursuant to Civ. R. 19(A)(3), “[a] person who is subject to service of

process shall be joined as a party in the action if * * * he has an interest relating to the subject of

the action as [a] * * * subrogee.” Under this provision, ODJFS was required to be made a party

to this lawsuit as it has a statutory right to recover any medical payments made to Plaintiff that

relate to the subject accident. While acknowledging ODJFS must be included as a party,

Defendants contend its joinder is a mere formality and its presence is unnecessary to resolve the

personal injury claims.

The Court disagrees. ODJFS is the real party in interest as to any medical payments

made that can be related to the accident. The Complaint “disputes” the validity and amount of

ODJFS’ subrogated interest and demands that ODJFS appear in the action to represent its

interests or be forever barred from pursuing a subrogation claim. Moreover, ODJFS has filed a

Cross-Claim against Defendants requesting judgment in its favor for any amounts expended for

medical services and care resulting from the accident. A litigant filing a claim and demand for

judgment is not a nominal party to a lawsuit.

Accordingly, as ODJFS has its principal place of business in Franklin County, pursuant

to Civ. 3(B)(2) and (8), this is a proper forum for the lawsuit. The Motions to Transfer Venue

are therefore DENIED.

B. Motion to Dismiss

Montgomery County moves to be dismissed from this action on the grounds that it is not

sui juris. “[C]Jounties, as political entities, are not sui juris; they are held accountable through

their elected representatives, to wit, their commissioners.” McGuire v. Ameritech Servs., 253
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 22 1:03 PM-23CV005620
0G553 - R1
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2015 Nov 05 2:14 PM-15CV007804
OC759 - D20

F Supp.2d 988, 1015 (S.D.Ohio 2003). However, “[mlisjoinder of parties is not ground for

dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any

party or of its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just.” Civ. R. 21.

Therefore, the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED, but Plaintiff is GRANTED leave and shall,

within fourteen days, file an amended complaint substituting the Montgomery County

Commissioners, in their official capacity, as the proper defendants in this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Electronically Signed By:
JUDGE MARK A. SERROTT

Copies to (via e-filing notification):

Benjamin P. Pfouts
J. Francis Mackey
Counsel for Plaintiff

Anne M. Jagielski
Joseph D. Saks
Counsel for Defendants Darren L. Harvey, Montgomery County, and
Montgomery County Sheriff's Office

Robert J. Byrne
Counsel for Defendant ODJFS
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 22 1:03 PM-23CV005620
0G553 - R1
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2015 Nov 05 2:14 PM-15CV007804
0C759 - D21

Franklin County Court of Common Pleas

Date: 11-05-2015

Case Title: MAJOR WRIGHT JR -VS- DARREN L HARVEY ET AL

Case Number: 15CV007804

Type: DECISION/ENTRY

It Is So Ordered.

£e.

/s/ Judge Mark Serrott

Electronically signed on 2015-Nov-05 page 6 of 6
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 22 1:03 PM-23CV005620
0G553 - R1
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2015 Nov 05 2:14 PM-15CV007804
0C759 - D22

Court Disposition

Case Number: 15CV007804

Case Style: MAJOR WRIGHT JR -VS- DARREN L HARVEY ET AL

Motion Tie Off Information:
1, Motion CMS Document Id: 15CV0078042015-1 1-0499960000
Document Title: 11-04-2015-MOTION TO DISMISS -
DEFENDANT: MONTGOMERY COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT
Disposition: MOTION DENIED

2. Motion CMS Document Id: 15CV0078042015-10-2799970000
Document Title: 10-27-2015-MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE -
PLAINTIFF: MAJOR WRIGHT JR
Disposition: MOTION GRANTED IN PART

3. Motion CMS Document Id: 15CV0078042015-10-2699980000
Document Title: 10-26-2015-MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE -
DEFENDANT: DARREN L. HARVEY
Disposition: MOTION DENIED

4. Motion CMS Document Id: 15CV0078042015-10-1399960000
Document Title: 10-13-2015-MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE -
DEFENDANT: DARREN L. HARVEY
Disposition: MOTION DENIED
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 22 1:03 PM-23CV005620
0G553 - R1
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2016 Jul 12 12:17 PM-16CV003359

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO

MARY E DOUGHMAN INDI et al.,

Plaintiffs,
CASE NO. 16 CV 003359
VS.
JUDGE COLLEEN O*DONNELL
MICHAEL J COOK II, et al.,

Defendants.

DECISION AND ENTRY DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE, FILED MAY 17,
2016

This matter comes before the Court upon the Motion of Defendant, Michael J. Cook , IT

(‘Defendant Cook”), for an Order transferring this action to the Clinton County Common Pleas

Court. Plaintiff filed a memorandum contra on May 19, 2016, and Defendant Cook did not file a

reply brief.

This lawsuit arises out of an automobile accident that occurred in Clinton County, Ohio.

Defendant Cook argues that the only connection this lawsuit has with Franklin County is that

Defendant Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (“ODJFS”) has its principal place of

business in Franklin County. Plaintiff brought a declaratory judgment claim against ODJFS,

disputing the validity and amount of any subrogation claims that ODJFS may claim. Defendant

Cook argues that because ODJFS is a nominal party in this case, venue in Franklin County is

improper.

Civ.R. 3(B) provides in relevant part: “Any action may be venued, commenced, and

decided in any court in any county. * * * Proper venue lies in any one or more of the following

counties: * * * The county in which the defendant has his or her principal place of business.”

EXHIBIT
re
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 22 1:03 PM-23CV005620
0G553 - R2
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2016 Jul 12 12:17 PM-16CV003359

In cases of multiple defendants, such as the instant action, Civ.R. 3(E) provides: “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.”

“(Flor purposes of Civ.R. 3(B), it may be said that 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.” Smith v. Inland Paperboard & Packaging, Inc., 11th Dist.

Portage No. 2007-P-0088, 2008-Ohio-6984, {| 41.

The Court disagrees that ODJFS is merely a nominal party in this litigation. Plaintiff's

Complaint disputes the validity and amount of ODJFS’s subrogated interest for any medical

payments made in relation to the accident. Moreover, ODJFS filed a Crossclaim against

defendants seeking to recover the amount expended for medical services provided to Plaintiff.

Under these facts, ODJFS cannot be considered a nominal party to this lawsuit.

Accordingly, as ODJFS has its principal place of business in Franklin County, the Court

finds that this is a proper forum for this case. Defendant Cook’s Motion to Transfer Venue is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Copies to all parties.
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 22 1:03 PM-23CV005620
0G553 - R2
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2016 Jul 12 12:17 PM-16CV003359

Franklin County Court of Common Pleas

Date: 07-12-2016

Case Title: MARY E DOUGHMAN INDI ET AL -VS- MICHAEL J COOK I ET
AL
Case Number: 16CV003359

Type: DECISION/ENTRY

It Is S

Case Info

Judge

CARL A AVENI Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

September 22, 2023

Case Filing Date

August 08, 2023

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Document for THERON OLIVER Vs TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA VS.TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA ET AL

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties