Preview
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 Jun 08 9:53 AM-20CV004107
OF524 - H5
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO
CIVIL DIVISION
CLASSIC DINING GROUP LLC,
ET AL.
Plaintiff, Case No. 20 CV 004107
Vv. JUDGE CARL A. AVENI
STATE AUTO INSURANCE
COMPANIES
Defendant.
DECISION AND ENTRY DENYING DEFENDANT STATE AUTO INSURANCE
COMPANIES’ MOTION TO DISMISS FILED JULY 29, 2020
AND
DECISION AND ENTRY DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
FILED JANUARY 22, 2021
I Introduction
This matter is before the Court on Defendant State Auto Insurance Companies’ Motion to
Dismiss, filed July 29, 2020. On August 12, 2020, Plaintiff Classic Dining Group, LLC filed a
Memorandum in Opposition. On August 19, 2020 Defendant filed a Reply. On August 23, 2020,
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. On October 1, 2020, Defendant filed an unopposed Motion
to Accept its Pending Motion to Dismiss the Original Complaint in Lieu of Further Response to
the Amended Complaint on the grounds that Plaintiff filed their Amended Complaint for the sole
purpose of correcting the Defendant’s name in the original Complaint -- which this Court hereby
grants instanter.
On November 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed Supplemental Authority. On November 6, 2020,
Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff's Supplemental Authority. On January 8, 2021, Defendant
filed Supplemental Authority. On January 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike Defendant’s
Supplemental Authority. On February 5, 2021, Defendant filed a Memorandum in Opposition to
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 Jun 08 9:53 AM-20CV004107
OF524 - H5
Plaintiffs Motion to Strike. Plaintiff did not file a Reply. In reaching this decision, the Court has
reviewed the Supplemental Authorities filed by both parties, therefore Plaintiff s Motion to Strike
is DENIED
IL. Factual Background
Plaintiff is a business that operates a group of franchised Denny’s and Ruby Tuesday
restaurants in Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. (Am. Compl. § 1.) Defendant is an insurance
company with its principal place of business in Franklin County, Ohio, and is the business of
selling insurance policies around the country including Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. (/d. J 57.)
Plaintiff’ s complaint alleges that Defendant sold it Policy Nos. SPP2501221 and 289281703. (/d.
4 19, 21.) In March of 2020, COVID-19 became a global pandemic. As a result, Indiana, Illinois,
and Wisconsin declared states of emergencies and enacted orders impacting the business operation
of restaurants. (/d. J] 5, 6, 7.)
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint asserts it has paid the premiums required by the policy, but
that Defendant has refused to provide coverage to which it is entitled. As a result, Plaintiff asserts
the following claims for relief: (1) declaratory judgment, (2) breach of contract, and (3) bad faith
denial of insurance.
Til. Discussion
A. Introduction
Defendant seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint based on the doctrine of forum non
conveniens. The doctrine of forum non conveniens permits a court to dismiss or transfer a case,
even though jurisdiction and venue are proper in the court chosen by the plaintiff, because there is
a more appropriate forum in which the action may be heard. Hughes v. Scaffide, 53 Ohio St. 2d
85, 7 Ohio Op. 3d 175, 372 N.E.2d 598 (1978); Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Cincinnati Gas &
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 Jun 08 9:53 AM-20CV004107
OF524 - H5
Elec. Co., 169 Ohio App. 3d 207, 2006-Ohio-5350, 862 N.E.2d 201 (1st Dist. Hamilton County
2006). The doctrine allows such a dismissal or transfer if it furthers the ends of justice and
promotes the convenience of the parties.
In Chambers v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Chambers v. Merrell-Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 123, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized the
common-law doctrine of forum non conveniens. In determining whether to dismiss a case on the
basis of forum non conveniens, courts consider a number of private and public interest factors.
Chambers at 126-127.
The private factors include: (1) ease of access to sources of proof; (2) availability of
witnesses; (3) the cost of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses; (4) the possibility of a view
of the premises, if appropriate; and (5) all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy,
expeditious, and inexpensive. /d. In addition to the private factors, public factors are also weighed,
including: (1) administrative difficulties; (2) the imposition of jury duty upon the citizens of a
community that has very little relation to the litigation; (3) a local interest in having localized
controversies decided at home; and (4) the appropriateness of litigating a case in a forum familiar
with the applicable law. /d. at 127
The case law suggests a strong preference to not disturb a plaintiffs choice of forum under
the doctrine of forum non conveniens. For instance, in Gulf Oil Corp the Supreme Court of Ohio
held that " . unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum
should rarely be disturbed." Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed.
1055 (1947); See also, Chambers, 35 Ohio St. 3d at 127; See also Omans v. Norfolk S. Ry., 165
Ohio App.3d 146, 2006-Ohio-325, 844 N.E.2d 1259, 8 (6th Dist.) (“A plaintiff's choice of forum
should not be disturbed except for ‘weighty reasons,’ and the case should be dismissed only where
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 Jun 08 9:53 AM-20CV004107
OF524 - H6
the balance strongly favors the defendant.”) As is discussed below, on balance, the forum non
conceniens factors for consideration favor Plaintiff's selection of Franklin County as an
appropriate forum for this action.
B. Analysis of Private Factors and Public Factors related to the doctrine of forum non
conveniens.
1. The private factors weigh against transfer.
The private factors are: (1) ease of access to sources of proof; (2) availability of witnesses;
(3) the cost of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses; (4) the possibility of a view of the
premises, if appropriate; and (5) all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy,
expeditious, and inexpensive. /d. Defendant makes two arguments related to the private factors.
First, Defendant contends that because none of the premises in issue are located in Ohio,
the relative ease of access to sources of proof and possibility of viewing these foreign premises is
significantly diminished. The Court is not persuaded by this argument. This is a breach of contract
and bad faith case. Adjudication of this case will likely turn on construction of the provisions of
the insurance policies and executive orders at issue. Defendant has not made a good faith showing
that a view of any premises will be necessary and the Court does not find it probable that this case
will require access to the physical premises covered under the insurance policies at issue. Indeed,
even if it were otherwise, and site views were appropriate, there is no other single state where the
totality of site views could be performed.
Second, Defendant asserts that because Plaintiff seeks “Civil Authority” coverage under
the State Auto Property Policies which relates to foreign government orders, the witnesses will
likely reside outside of Ohio. To the extent that witnesses are likely to reside outside of Ohio, the
Court notes that during the course of the pandemic litigants have successfully utilized technology
such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and other remote conferencing technology to enable depositions
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 Jun 08 9:53 AM-20CV004107
OF524 - H6
and hearings from afar. In addition to lessening the degree of in-person contact between counsel
and witnesses, such procedures offer efficiency and convivence which offsets the concerns raised
by Defendant. On balance, the private factors point to Franklin County, Ohio as the appropriate
forum for resolving this dispute.
2. The public factors weigh against transfer.
In addition to the above, the Court finds the public factors weigh against transfer. The
public factors to be weighed are: (1) administrative difficulties; (2) the imposition of jury duty
upon the citizens of a community that has very little relation to the litigation; (3) a local interest in
having localized controversies decided at home; and (4) the appropriateness of litigating a case in
a forum familiar with the applicable law. /d. at 127
a. Defendant merely speculates that administrative difficulties will exist in
this case.
Defendant speculates that administrative difficulties and delay could occur since none of
the properties at issue are located in Ohio. Defendant fails to state with any degree of specificity
what the administrative difficulty and delay would be. Due to the speculative nature of Plaintiffs’
assertion, the Court finds this factor weighs against transfer.
b. The imposition of jury duty upon the citizens of a community that has
very little relation to the litigation.
Defendant asserts that the ultimate issue in this case relates to insurance contract issues
concerning insurance policies negotiated, entered into, and brokered outside the state of Ohio.
Therefore, this weighs slightly in favor of transfer. However, the Court also notes the fact that
Defendant State Auto has its principal place of business in Columbus, Ohio is a consideration that
weighs slightly against transfer. This factor does not weigh in favor or against transfer because the
considerations offset each other.
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 Jun 08 9:53 AM-20CV004107
OF524 - H6é
c. A local interest in having localized controversies decided at home.
Defendant contends that this case does not constitute a localized controversy because it
deals with the application of foreign contract law to business interruption claims presented by
foreign companies based upon executive orders issued by foreign states. Defendant argues that
Illinois is a more appropriate forum. However, such assertion is undercut based on the fact that the
properties at issue are not just located in Illinois but are also located in Indiana and Wisconsin. As
a result, a court based in Illinois would necessarily be required to analyze and apply executive
orders issued by foreign states which by their very nature are not localized. Therefore, this factor
weighs against transfer.
d. The appropriateness of litigating a case in a forum familiar with the
applicable law.
Defendant asserts that since the law at issue will not be Ohio law, Illinois is a more suitable
venue to hear this case. Even if the Court accepts Defendant’s position that Illinois law governs
the policies at issue, the Court finds that such a determination alone is not dispositive of the
question before the Court. See Am. Pan Co. v. Lockwood Mfg., S.D.Ohio No. C-3-06-197, 2006
USS. Dist. LEXIS 69066 (Sep. 26, 2006) (denying motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens
grounds even though foreign jurisdiction’s laws applied, as the other public and private factors
weighed in favor the original jurisdiction.); see also Study v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Wh
Dist. Lorain C.A. NO. 96CA006654, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 4295, at *6 (Sep. 24, 1997} (noting
that the question of whether a particular jurisdiction’s law applies is not dispositive, as “{nJo single
factor is determinative”). In general, the weight to be given each factor depends largely upon the
facts of each case. Glidden Co. v. HM Holdings, 109 Ohio App.3d 721, 724, 672 N ed 1108 (8th
Dist.1996}; see also Omans v. Norfolk S. Ry., 165 Ohio App.3d 146, 2006-Ohio-325, 844 N.E.2d
1259, 9 (6th Dist.) (finding “[a]ll ofthe relevant criteria are to be applied flexibly, with each case
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 Jun 08 9:53 AM-20CV004107
OF524 - H6
turning on its own facts.” As this Court notes above, adjudication of this case will likely turn on
construction of the provisions of the insurance policies and executive orders at issue. It is not
uncommon for courts to examine and apply foreign law to cases and controversies that come before
the Court and this Court is prepared to do so if need be.
IV. Conclusion
The Court has weighed the private and public factors and finds that on balance this case
should remain in Franklin County. Given the strong preference to not disturb a plaintiff's choice
of venue, the Court finds Plaintiff's choice of venue should not be disturbed. Therefore, the Court
finds dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens is
improper. Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Copies to all counsel via electronic filing system.
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 Jun 08 9:53 AM-20CV004107
OF524 - H6
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
Date: 06-08-2021
Case Title: CLASSIC DINING GROUP LLC -VS- STATE AUTO INSURANCE
COMPANIES
Case Number: 20CV004107
Type: ENTRY
It Is So Ordered.
x
Py oy
CC
\
}
CAL _ SN see
p<
la
NN
/s/ Judge Carl A. Aveni II
Electronically signed on 2021-Jun-08 page 8 of 8
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 Jun 08 9:53 AM-20CV004107
OF524 - H6
Court Disposition
Case Number: 20CV004107
Case Style: CLASSIC DINING GROUP LLC -VS- STATE AUTO
INSURANCE COMPANIES
Motion Tie Off Information:
1. Motion CMS Document Id: 20CV0041072020-07-2999960000
Document Title: 07-29-2020-MOTION TO DISMISS -
DEFENDANT: STATE AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES
Disposition: MOTION DENIED
2. Motion CMS Document Id: 20CV0041072020-09-0399980000
Document Title: 09-03-2020-MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE -
PLAINTIFF: CLASSIC DINING GROUP LLC
Disposition: MOTION GRANTED
3. Motion CMS Document Id: 20CV0041072020-09-0399970000
Document Title: 09-03-2020-MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE -
PLAINTIFF: CLASSIC DINING GROUP LLC
Disposition: MOTION GRANTED
4. Motion CMS Document Id: 20CV0041072020-09-0399960000
Document Title: 09-03-2020-MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE -
PLAINTIFF: CLASSIC DINING GROUP LLC
Disposition: MOTION GRANTED
5. Motion CMS Document Id: 20CV0041072020-09-2299980000
Document Title: 09-22-2020-MOTION - DEFENDANT: STATE
AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES - STATE AUTO PROPERTY AND
CASUALTY INSURAN
Disposition: MOTION RELEASED TO CLEAR DOCKET
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 Jun 08 9:53 AM-20CV004107
OF524 - H6
6. Motion CMS Document Id: 20CV0041072020-10-0199970000
Document Title: 10-01-2020-MOTION - DEFENDANT: STATE
AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES - TO ACCEPT ITS PENDING
MOTION TO DISMISS
Disposition: MOTION GRANTED
7. Motion CMS Document Id: 20CV0041072021-01-2299980000
Document Title: 01-22-2021-MOTION TO STRIKE - PLAINTIFF:
CLASSIC DINING GROUP LLC
Disposition: MOTION DENIED
Preview
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 Jun 08 9:53 AM-20CV004107 OF524 - H5 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO CIVIL DIVISION CLASSIC DINING GROUP LLC, ET AL. Plaintiff, Case No. 20 CV 004107 Vv. JUDGE CARL A. AVENI STATE AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES Defendant. DECISION AND ENTRY DENYING DEFENDANT STATE AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES’ MOTION TO DISMISS FILED JULY 29, 2020 AND DECISION AND ENTRY DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE FILED JANUARY 22, 2021 I Introduction This matter is before the Court on Defendant State Auto Insurance Companies’ Motion to Dismiss, filed July 29, 2020. On August 12, 2020, Plaintiff Classic Dining Group, LLC filed a Memorandum in Opposition. On August 19, 2020 Defendant filed a Reply. On August 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. On October 1, 2020, Defendant filed an unopposed Motion to Accept its Pending Motion to Dismiss the Original Complaint in Lieu of Further Response to the Amended Complaint on the grounds that Plaintiff filed their Amended Complaint for the sole purpose of correcting the Defendant’s name in the original Complaint -- which this Court hereby grants instanter. On November 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed Supplemental Authority. On November 6, 2020, Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff's Supplemental Authority. On January 8, 2021, Defendant filed Supplemental Authority. On January 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike Defendant’s Supplemental Authority. On February 5, 2021, Defendant filed a Memorandum in Opposition to Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 Jun 08 9:53 AM-20CV004107 OF524 - H5 Plaintiffs Motion to Strike. Plaintiff did not file a Reply. In reaching this decision, the Court has reviewed the Supplemental Authorities filed by both parties, therefore Plaintiff s Motion to Strike is DENIED IL. Factual Background Plaintiff is a business that operates a group of franchised Denny’s and Ruby Tuesday restaurants in Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. (Am. Compl. § 1.) Defendant is an insurance company with its principal place of business in Franklin County, Ohio, and is the business of selling insurance policies around the country including Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. (/d. J 57.) Plaintiff’ s complaint alleges that Defendant sold it Policy Nos. SPP2501221 and 289281703. (/d. 4 19, 21.) In March of 2020, COVID-19 became a global pandemic. As a result, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin declared states of emergencies and enacted orders impacting the business operation of restaurants. (/d. J] 5, 6, 7.) Plaintiff's Amended Complaint asserts it has paid the premiums required by the policy, but that Defendant has refused to provide coverage to which it is entitled. As a result, Plaintiff asserts the following claims for relief: (1) declaratory judgment, (2) breach of contract, and (3) bad faith denial of insurance. Til. Discussion A. Introduction Defendant seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The doctrine of forum non conveniens permits a court to dismiss or transfer a case, even though jurisdiction and venue are proper in the court chosen by the plaintiff, because there is a more appropriate forum in which the action may be heard. Hughes v. Scaffide, 53 Ohio St. 2d 85, 7 Ohio Op. 3d 175, 372 N.E.2d 598 (1978); Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Cincinnati Gas & Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 Jun 08 9:53 AM-20CV004107 OF524 - H5 Elec. Co., 169 Ohio App. 3d 207, 2006-Ohio-5350, 862 N.E.2d 201 (1st Dist. Hamilton County 2006). The doctrine allows such a dismissal or transfer if it furthers the ends of justice and promotes the convenience of the parties. In Chambers v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Chambers v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 123, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized the common-law doctrine of forum non conveniens. In determining whether to dismiss a case on the basis of forum non conveniens, courts consider a number of private and public interest factors. Chambers at 126-127. The private factors include: (1) ease of access to sources of proof; (2) availability of witnesses; (3) the cost of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses; (4) the possibility of a view of the premises, if appropriate; and (5) all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive. /d. In addition to the private factors, public factors are also weighed, including: (1) administrative difficulties; (2) the imposition of jury duty upon the citizens of a community that has very little relation to the litigation; (3) a local interest in having localized controversies decided at home; and (4) the appropriateness of litigating a case in a forum familiar with the applicable law. /d. at 127 The case law suggests a strong preference to not disturb a plaintiffs choice of forum under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. For instance, in Gulf Oil Corp the Supreme Court of Ohio held that " . unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed." Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947); See also, Chambers, 35 Ohio St. 3d at 127; See also Omans v. Norfolk S. Ry., 165 Ohio App.3d 146, 2006-Ohio-325, 844 N.E.2d 1259, 8 (6th Dist.) (“A plaintiff's choice of forum should not be disturbed except for ‘weighty reasons,’ and the case should be dismissed only where Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 Jun 08 9:53 AM-20CV004107 OF524 - H6 the balance strongly favors the defendant.”) As is discussed below, on balance, the forum non conceniens factors for consideration favor Plaintiff's selection of Franklin County as an appropriate forum for this action. B. Analysis of Private Factors and Public Factors related to the doctrine of forum non conveniens. 1. The private factors weigh against transfer. The private factors are: (1) ease of access to sources of proof; (2) availability of witnesses; (3) the cost of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses; (4) the possibility of a view of the premises, if appropriate; and (5) all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive. /d. Defendant makes two arguments related to the private factors. First, Defendant contends that because none of the premises in issue are located in Ohio, the relative ease of access to sources of proof and possibility of viewing these foreign premises is significantly diminished. The Court is not persuaded by this argument. This is a breach of contract and bad faith case. Adjudication of this case will likely turn on construction of the provisions of the insurance policies and executive orders at issue. Defendant has not made a good faith showing that a view of any premises will be necessary and the Court does not find it probable that this case will require access to the physical premises covered under the insurance policies at issue. Indeed, even if it were otherwise, and site views were appropriate, there is no other single state where the totality of site views could be performed. Second, Defendant asserts that because Plaintiff seeks “Civil Authority” coverage under the State Auto Property Policies which relates to foreign government orders, the witnesses will likely reside outside of Ohio. To the extent that witnesses are likely to reside outside of Ohio, the Court notes that during the course of the pandemic litigants have successfully utilized technology such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and other remote conferencing technology to enable depositions Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 Jun 08 9:53 AM-20CV004107 OF524 - H6 and hearings from afar. In addition to lessening the degree of in-person contact between counsel and witnesses, such procedures offer efficiency and convivence which offsets the concerns raised by Defendant. On balance, the private factors point to Franklin County, Ohio as the appropriate forum for resolving this dispute. 2. The public factors weigh against transfer. In addition to the above, the Court finds the public factors weigh against transfer. The public factors to be weighed are: (1) administrative difficulties; (2) the imposition of jury duty upon the citizens of a community that has very little relation to the litigation; (3) a local interest in having localized controversies decided at home; and (4) the appropriateness of litigating a case in a forum familiar with the applicable law. /d. at 127 a. Defendant merely speculates that administrative difficulties will exist in this case. Defendant speculates that administrative difficulties and delay could occur since none of the properties at issue are located in Ohio. Defendant fails to state with any degree of specificity what the administrative difficulty and delay would be. Due to the speculative nature of Plaintiffs’ assertion, the Court finds this factor weighs against transfer. b. The imposition of jury duty upon the citizens of a community that has very little relation to the litigation. Defendant asserts that the ultimate issue in this case relates to insurance contract issues concerning insurance policies negotiated, entered into, and brokered outside the state of Ohio. Therefore, this weighs slightly in favor of transfer. However, the Court also notes the fact that Defendant State Auto has its principal place of business in Columbus, Ohio is a consideration that weighs slightly against transfer. This factor does not weigh in favor or against transfer because the considerations offset each other. Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 Jun 08 9:53 AM-20CV004107 OF524 - H6é c. A local interest in having localized controversies decided at home. Defendant contends that this case does not constitute a localized controversy because it deals with the application of foreign contract law to business interruption claims presented by foreign companies based upon executive orders issued by foreign states. Defendant argues that Illinois is a more appropriate forum. However, such assertion is undercut based on the fact that the properties at issue are not just located in Illinois but are also located in Indiana and Wisconsin. As a result, a court based in Illinois would necessarily be required to analyze and apply executive orders issued by foreign states which by their very nature are not localized. Therefore, this factor weighs against transfer. d. The appropriateness of litigating a case in a forum familiar with the applicable law. Defendant asserts that since the law at issue will not be Ohio law, Illinois is a more suitable venue to hear this case. Even if the Court accepts Defendant’s position that Illinois law governs the policies at issue, the Court finds that such a determination alone is not dispositive of the question before the Court. See Am. Pan Co. v. Lockwood Mfg., S.D.Ohio No. C-3-06-197, 2006 USS. Dist. LEXIS 69066 (Sep. 26, 2006) (denying motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds even though foreign jurisdiction’s laws applied, as the other public and private factors weighed in favor the original jurisdiction.); see also Study v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Wh Dist. Lorain C.A. NO. 96CA006654, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 4295, at *6 (Sep. 24, 1997} (noting that the question of whether a particular jurisdiction’s law applies is not dispositive, as “{nJo single factor is determinative”). In general, the weight to be given each factor depends largely upon the facts of each case. Glidden Co. v. HM Holdings, 109 Ohio App.3d 721, 724, 672 N ed 1108 (8th Dist.1996}; see also Omans v. Norfolk S. Ry., 165 Ohio App.3d 146, 2006-Ohio-325, 844 N.E.2d 1259, 9 (6th Dist.) (finding “[a]ll ofthe relevant criteria are to be applied flexibly, with each case Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 Jun 08 9:53 AM-20CV004107 OF524 - H6 turning on its own facts.” As this Court notes above, adjudication of this case will likely turn on construction of the provisions of the insurance policies and executive orders at issue. It is not uncommon for courts to examine and apply foreign law to cases and controversies that come before the Court and this Court is prepared to do so if need be. IV. Conclusion The Court has weighed the private and public factors and finds that on balance this case should remain in Franklin County. Given the strong preference to not disturb a plaintiff's choice of venue, the Court finds Plaintiff's choice of venue should not be disturbed. Therefore, the Court finds dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens is improper. Defendant’s Motion is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Copies to all counsel via electronic filing system. Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 Jun 08 9:53 AM-20CV004107 OF524 - H6 Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Date: 06-08-2021 Case Title: CLASSIC DINING GROUP LLC -VS- STATE AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES Case Number: 20CV004107 Type: ENTRY It Is So Ordered. x Py oy CC \ } CAL _ SN see p< la NN /s/ Judge Carl A. Aveni II Electronically signed on 2021-Jun-08 page 8 of 8 Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 Jun 08 9:53 AM-20CV004107 OF524 - H6 Court Disposition Case Number: 20CV004107 Case Style: CLASSIC DINING GROUP LLC -VS- STATE AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES Motion Tie Off Information: 1. Motion CMS Document Id: 20CV0041072020-07-2999960000 Document Title: 07-29-2020-MOTION TO DISMISS - DEFENDANT: STATE AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES Disposition: MOTION DENIED 2. Motion CMS Document Id: 20CV0041072020-09-0399980000 Document Title: 09-03-2020-MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE - PLAINTIFF: CLASSIC DINING GROUP LLC Disposition: MOTION GRANTED 3. Motion CMS Document Id: 20CV0041072020-09-0399970000 Document Title: 09-03-2020-MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE - PLAINTIFF: CLASSIC DINING GROUP LLC Disposition: MOTION GRANTED 4. Motion CMS Document Id: 20CV0041072020-09-0399960000 Document Title: 09-03-2020-MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE - PLAINTIFF: CLASSIC DINING GROUP LLC Disposition: MOTION GRANTED 5. Motion CMS Document Id: 20CV0041072020-09-2299980000 Document Title: 09-22-2020-MOTION - DEFENDANT: STATE AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES - STATE AUTO PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURAN Disposition: MOTION RELEASED TO CLEAR DOCKET Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2021 Jun 08 9:53 AM-20CV004107 OF524 - H6 6. Motion CMS Document Id: 20CV0041072020-10-0199970000 Document Title: 10-01-2020-MOTION - DEFENDANT: STATE AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES - TO ACCEPT ITS PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS Disposition: MOTION GRANTED 7. Motion CMS Document Id: 20CV0041072021-01-2299980000 Document Title: 01-22-2021-MOTION TO STRIKE - PLAINTIFF: CLASSIC DINING GROUP LLC Disposition: MOTION DENIED