Preview
IN THE DELAWARE COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT
CIVIL DIVISION
Kyushu Ramen, LLC, ef al., Judge: David M. Gormley
Plaintiffs, Case No: 24-CV-C-04-0342
VS.
JKH Eastern Enterprises, LLC, ef al.,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Under Ohio Civil Rule 65(A) and R.C. 2727.02, Plaintiffs Kyushu Ramen, LLC (“Kyushu
Ramen”) and Kyushu Ramen 23, LLC (“Kyushu Ramen 23”) (collectively, “Kyushu”) respectfully
move this court for a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction against Defendant
JKH Eastern Enterprises, LLC (“JKH”), enjoining and restraining it from using self-help remedies
to change the locks and evict Kyushu from the property situated at 6418 Pullman Drive, Lewis
Center, Ohio 43035 (the “Premises”). Kyushu further seeks to enjoin and restrain Defendants
Myungsub J. Hyun (“Mr. Hyun”) and Kim Hyun (“Mrs. Hyun”) from continuing to access the
Premises without 48-hour notice to Kyushu, absent exigent circumstances.
JKH is attempting to use self-help remedies that are in direct violation of that certain
LEASE AGREEMENT (COMMERCIAL) (the “Lease”), dated July 8, 2022, entered into with
Kyushu Ramen, LLC. The Lease is attached to the Verified Complaint as Exhibit A. Kyushu is
current on all rent obligations and on all other lease obligations. Simply put, Kyushu is not in
default of the Lease. As such, JKH must be restricted from taking such inappropriate action, and
Mr. and Mrs. Hyun must be restricted in their access to the Premises to prevent further irreparable
1
CLERK OF COURTS - DELAWARE COUNTY, OH - COMMON PLEAS COURT
24 CV C 04 0342 - GORMLEY, DAVID M
FILED: 04/04/2024 11:14 AM
harm to Kyushu. The grounds for this Motion are more fully set forth in the accompanying
Memorandum in Support.
Respectfully Submitted,
LUPER NEIDENTHAL & LOGAN
A Legal Professional Association
és/ Kirsten M. Cox
Matthew T. Anderson (0082730)
Kyle T. Anderson (0097806)
Kirsten M. Cox (0102183)
1160 Dublin Road, Suite 400
Columbus, Ohio 43215-1052
Telephone: (614) 221-7663
Facsimile: (866) 345-4948
E-mail: manderson@LNLattorneys.com
E-mail: kanderson@LNLattorneys.com
E-mail: kcox@LNLattorneys.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
I INTRODUCTION
This is an action to enjoin a landlord from using self-help remedies to evict a tenant with
the malicious purpose of re-leasing the Premises at an increased rental rate. JKH has manufactured
false reasons to evict Kyushu for the sole purpose of terminating the lease so that it can use the
benefit of Kyushu’s significant improvements made to the Premises to charge a higher rental rate
to a new tenant. This is a tale as old as time — JKH wants the benefit of the improvements made
to the Premises at the costs of Kyushu, without having to fulfill its obligations under the Lease.
Kyushu is not in default of the Lease. Rather, Kyushu has never missed a rent payment. It
is current on all obligations under the Lease, rent and otherwise. Therefore, JHK must be enjoined
from using self-help remedies which it continues to threaten, attempting to procure a payment from
Kyushu for certain construction costs that are the obligations of Kyushu under the Lease
Tn addition, ever since the lease was executed and construction on the Premises began, Mr.
and Mrs. Hyun have harassed and menaced Kyushu, with the goal of forcing Kyushu out of the
Premises while maintaining the benefit of the improvements made. This harassment includes,
among other things, Mr. and Mrs. Hyun showing up at the Premises, without notice, and removing
Kyushu’s property, yelling and screaming during business hours, disrupting business, scaring
customers, and causing lost revenues. (Verified Complaint, ] 71, 72, 209). This harassment
cannot continue and thus, Mr. and Mrs. Hyun must be restricted in the access they have to the
Premises by way of an Order requiring 48-hour notice to Kyushu before Mr. and Mrs. Hyun can
access the Premises, absent exigent circumstances.
IL. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On or around July 8, 2022, Kyushu and JKH entered into the Lease for the rental of the
Premises. (Verified Complaint, §] 5, 20). Mr. and Mrs. Hyun are members of JKH and have
spoken on behalf of JKH since the inception of the Lease. (Verified Complaint, { 8, 9, 25).
Kyushu operates a ramen noodle bar located at the Premises. (Verified Complaint, § 17). The
annual base rent for the Lease is believed to be approximately thirty percent (30%) below the then-
current market rate for the Premises. (Verified Complaint, J 28). Upon this realization, JKH
exhibited buyers-remorse and began the crusade of attempting to run Kyushu out of the Premises
with the goal of renting the Premises at a higher rental rate to a new tenant. (Verified Complaint,
429).
JKH’s scheme to remove Kyushu from the Premises became more aggressive after Kyushu
made significant improvements to the Premises. Pursuant to Article 4(D) of the Lease, and with
the approval of JKH, Kyushu spent well over $600,000 to build the Premises for its ramen noodle
bar. (Verified Complaint, 7 34). This build-out raised the value of the Premises and turned it into
a turnkey business — i.e., a business that’s existing condition allows for immediate operation by a
new tenant. Thus, JKH’s goal in forcing Kyushu out is to retain the benefit of the build-out and
rent the Premises to a new restaurant owned by a tenant who will pay a higher rental rate. Mr. and
Mrs. Hyun took, and continue to take, actions to harass Kyushu in an attempt to make Kyushu
want to leave the Premises. This harassment includes Mr. and Mrs. Hyun showing up at the
Premises without notice and removing Kyushu’s property, yelling and screaming during business
hours, disrupting business, scaring customers, and causing lost revenues. (Verified Complaint,
71, 72, 209).
When JKH’s initial plan to harass Kyushu out of the Premises failed, JKH began to
manufacture other reasons to evict Kyushu, even though Kyushu is current on all rent payments
and has never missed a rent payment. (Verified Complaint, J 112). More specifically, JKH is
attempting to evict Kyushu over an increased water bill that was caused by damage to the water
line, and the costs of the repair of said water line.
In late 2023, a water leak was discovered at the Premises, due to a broken water line.
(Verified Complaint, 79). The water line in question was underground and concealed. (Verified
Complaint, { 80). Under ARTICLE 5 (MAINTENANCE), of the Lease, JHK’s obligation was to
repair the water line at its cost: “LESSOR shall, at its expense and risk, maintain the roof,
foundation, underground and otherwise concealed plumbing, concealed utility lines, the structural
soundness of the exterior walls, and the parking lot.” (See Exhibit A to the Verified Complaint at
Article 5). JHK investigated and repaired the water line but attempted to assess the construction
costs of $8,047.09 to Kyushu. (Verified Complaint, {J 82, 105). Under the Lease, however,
Kyushu is not obligated to pay for any investigation or construction costs for the repair of the
subject water line, which was underground and concealed. Therefore, JKH has no right under the
Lease to evict Kyushu from the Premises for refusing to pay for the construction costs.
Asa result of the water leak, the Premises incurred significantly high-water utility bills for
a period of roughly five (5) months. (Verified Complaint, 84). The water meter for the subject
Premises is a shared meter, shared by Kyushu and the Dairy Queen next door. (Verified Complaint,
485). The water account with Del-Co Water Company (“Del-Co”) is in the name of Palakai Inc.,
the corporation that owns-operates the Dairy Queen. (Verified Complaint, J 86). Kyushu and
Dairy Queen had agreed, amongst themselves, to a fair split of the water charges with Kyushu
paying directly to Dairy Queen 40% of the water bills each month. (Verified Complaint, § 88, 89,
90). Thus, no payment of water bills should be made to JKH. This situation is contemplated in
Article 6 of the Lease:
LESSEE shall pay all utility charges used in and about the Premises, said charges
to be paid by LESSEE to utility company or municipality furnishing the same,
before the same shall become delinquent. Utility charges shall include all gas,
electricity, sewer, water, garbage collection and other utilities consumed or wasted
upon the Premises. LESSEE shall not permit any lien or claim be filed against
LESSOR, or the Premises by reason of such charges. No interruption or curtailment
of utility service to the Premises shall be deemed an eviction or disturbance of
LESSEE’S use and possession of the Premises, or render LESSOR liable to
LESSEE for damages, or relieve the LESSOR of its obligations under the LEASE
AGREEMENT.
Notwithstanding this, JHK has unfairly, and without sufficient reasoning, demanded
money from Kyushu for the increased water charges. (Verified Complaint, J 94).
JHK claims that Kyushu owes “full damages” of $18,177.09 for the construction costs and
water bills relating to the leak. (Verified Complaint, J 103). JHK is attempting to assess this cost
against Kyushu by mere unfounded speculation that Kyushu’s installation of a grease trap ten (10)
months prior caused damage to the water line. Kyushu has disputed this accusation as there has
been no proof provided as to how the leak occurred and who is responsible for the increase in the
electric bill. JHK is now attempting to use this dispute to evict Kyushu. JHK is now threatening
to use self-help remedies and change the locks of Kyushu, evicting it from the Premises, based
solely on JHK’s erroneous assessment of construction costs and water bill charges to Kyushu.
(Verified Complaint, {| 129).
Kyushu is making approximately $15,000 per month, on average, in net income by
operating its ramen shop at the Premises. (Verified Complaint, J 133). Shutting the doors of
Kyushu Ramen 23 would effectively close the ramen bar, permanently, with great harm to
Kyushu’s good will and reputation. Thus, Kyushu would suffer great irreparable harm if JHK
unlawfully uses alleged self-help remedies.
Til. LAW AND ARGUMENT
Ohio Civil Rule 65(A) provides as follows:
A temporary restraining order may be granted without written or oral notice to the
adverse party or his attorney only if (1) it clearly appears from specific facts shown
by affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss
or damage will result to the applicant before the adverse party or his attorney can
be heard in opposition, and (2) the applicant’s attorney certifies to the court in
writing the efforts, if any, which have been made to give notice and the reasons
supporting his claim that notice should not be required.
In determining whether to grant a temporary restraining order, a trial court must consider:
(i) whether the movant has a strong or substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his
underlying claim; (ii) whether the movant will be irreparably harmed if the order is not granted;
(iii) what injury to others will be caused by the granting of the motion; and (iv) whether the public
interest will be served by the granting of the motion. Coleman y. Wilkinson, 147 Ohio App.3d
357, 358, 2002-Ohio-2021, 770 N.E.2d 637 (10th Dist.). The grant or denial of an injunction is
solely within the trial court’s discretion. Garono vy. State, 37 Ohio St. 3d 171, 173, 524 N.E.2d
496 (1988)
A. KYUSHU HAS A SUBSTANTIAL LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON THE
MERITS BECAUSE IT IS CURRENT ON ALL LEASE OBLIGATIONS.
JHK is threatening to use self-help remedies and change the locks of Kyushu, evicting it
from the Premises, based solely on JHK’s erroneous assessment of construction costs and water
bill charges to Kyushu. JHK is attempting to use this as a reason to initiate self-help remedies and
lock out Kyushu even though Kyushu is, and always has been, current on all rent payments. It is
obvious that JHK’s primary goal is to evict Kyushu so that it can re-lease the Premises to a new
tenant at a higher rentAL rate.
There is no dispute that an enforceable lease exists. As set forth in the Verified Complaint,
Kyushu is current on all payments due under the Lease. Therefore, JHK is not permitted to use
any self-help remedies because there was no default
JHK’s assertion that the unpaid water bill and construction costs are valid reasons to evict
are contradictory to the language of the Lease. Under Article 5 of the Lease, JHK’s obligation was
to repair the water line at its cost: “LESSOR shall, at its expense and risk, maintain the roof,
foundation, underground and otherwise concealed plumbing, concealed utility lines, the structural
soundness of the exterior walls, and the parking lot.” Thus, the construction costs cannot be
assessed to Kyushu as it is not responsible for such costs under the Lease.
As for the costs of the unpaid utility bill, Article 6 of the Lease provides:
LESSEE shall pay all utility charges used in and about the Premises, said charges
to be paid by LESSEE to utility company or municipality furnishing the same,
before the same shall become delinquent. Utility charges shall include all gas,
electricity, sewer, water, garbage collection and other utilities consumed or wasted
upon the Premises. LESSEE shall not permit any lien or claim be filed against
LESSOR, or the Premises by reason of such charges. No interruption or curtailment
of utility service to the Premises shall be deemed an eviction or disturbance of
LESSEE’S use and possession of the Premises, or render LESSOR liable to
LESSEE for damages, or relieve the LESSOR of its obligations under the LEASE
AGREEMENT.
Thus, even if Kyushu is found to be responsible for the increased water bill (which has not
been proven), the Lease prevents JHK from evicting or disturbing Kyushu’s use and possession of
the Premises over any unpaid utility charges.
It is simple — Kyushu has and continues to fulfill all obligations under the Lease and thus,
JHK’s attempt to evict Kyushu is wrongful. JHK’s threat of using self-help remedies to lock
Kyushu out of the Premises is unfounded and if it occurs, will amount to a breach of the Lease. If
allowed by this Court, the lock-out will result in significant damage to Kyushu. Given the strong
likelihood of success on the merits of Kyushu’s claim, Kyushu is entitled to injunctive relief against
JHK.
Additionally, Mr. and Mrs. Hyun’s continuous harassment of Kyushu is unlawful as it is
causing tortious interference with the economic and business relationships that Kyushu has with
its customers. As noted above, on several occasions, Mr. and Mrs. Hyun have shown up on the
Premises, without notice and uninvited, yelling and screaming during business hours. This has
caused Kyushu to lose customers/revenue. Mr. and Mrs. Hyun continue to access the Premises, in
their personal and individual capacities, solely to menace and harass Kyushu. These Defendants
have no justification at law for interfering with Kyushu’s economic and business relations
Kyushu’s claim for such interference has a strong likelihood of success on the merits, and thus,
Kyushu is entitled to injunctive relief against Mr. and Mrs. Hyun in order to restrict them from
accessing the Premises without 48-hour notice, absent exigent circumstances.
B. KYUSHU WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM IF INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF IS NOT GRANTED.
If JHK is permitted to wrongfully use self-help remedies, in direct violation of the Lease,
Kyushu will suffer irreparable harm that cannot be rectified. If JHK locks Kyushu out of the
Premises, Kyushu will lose significant revenues, estimated to be around $15,000 a month.
Additionally, Kyushu will suffer the irreparable harm of a damaged reputation if customers find
out that Kyushu has been locked out/evicted from the Premises. Kyushu has several ramen bars
in and around the city of Columbus, and any lock-out could result in a damaged reputation for
these other locations. This measure of potential damages is extremely difficult, if not impossible,
to calculate. As such, irreparable harm is present.
This Court must therefore enjoin JHK from using self-help remedies to lock Kyushu out
of the Premises as Kyushu will suffer irreparable harm if this is permitted.
9
Further, Mr. and Mrs. Hyun’s ongoing harassment continues to cause Kyushu irreparable
harm. Just this past Friday (March 29), Mr. Hyun showed up to the Premises, uninvited and
without notice, and removed the anchors outside of the store to prevent Kyushu from hanging
lanterns that it had already purchased. This, along with the continuous showing up and causing
dramatic scenes in front of the customers, has and continues to interfere with Kyushu’s customer
relationships, thus, causing Kyushu irreparable harm.
This Court must therefore enjoin Mr. and Mrs. Hyun from accessing the Premises without
providing Kyushu with a 48-hour notice, absent exigent circumstances.
Cc GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF WILL NOT INJURE OTHERS;
RATHER, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SERVES THE PUBLIC INTEREST
Preventing JHK from using self-help remedies does not injure the public in any way.
Kyushu simply seeks to stop JHK from locking it out of the Premises that it has paid to lease.
Additionally, enjoining JHK from exercising such self-help remedies is in the public’s best interest
as it would show the Court’s unwillingness to allow landlords to wrongfully evict tenants with the
goal of re-renting the Premises at a higher rental price. If this type of conduct was permitted, it
would only encourage other landlords to take similar actions, causing harm to the public. To allow
a landlord to evict a tenant who has fulfilled its obligations under a lease would set a precedent
that would harm the public interest. Self-help remedies were not meant to be used in this manner
and it would not be in the public’s best interest to allow such.
Requiring Mr. and Mrs. Hyun to give Kyushu 48-hour notice before accessing the Premises
also does not injure others. In fact, given the circumstances of this matter, such a requirement will
benefit the public interest as to prevent unnecessary disturbance to customers who wish to dine in
peace. Customers should not have to be witness to the conduct that Mr. and Mrs. Hyun bring to
Kyushu on a regular basis
10
Injunctive relief here will not cause injury to others. Indeed, the contrary holds true. The
public interest will better be served by granting injunctive relief to Kyushu.
Iv. CONCLUSION
In order to prevent further irreparable harm to Kyushu, Kyushu is entitled to injunctive
relief against JHK, Mr. Hyun, and Mrs. Hyun. For all the foregoing reasons, Kyushu requests that
KH] be enjoined from using self-help remedies to lock Kyushu out of the Premises. Kyushu also
requests that Mr. Hyun and Mrs. Hyun be enjoined from accessing the Premises without 48 hours’
notice to Kyushu, absent exigent circumstances. A proposed temporary restraining order
accompanies this Motion in Word format and also is attached hereto as Exhibit 1
Respectfully Submitted,
LUPER NEIDENTHAL & LOGAN
A Legal Professional Association
és/ Kirsten M. Cox
Matthew T. Anderson (0082730)
Kyle T. Anderson (0097806)
Kirsten M. Cox (0102183)
1160 Dublin Road, Suite 400
Columbus, Ohio 43215-1052
Telephone: (614) 221-7663
Facsimile: (866) 345-4948
E-mail: manderson@LNLattorneys.com
E-mail: kanderson@LNLattorneys.com
E-mail: kcox@LNLattorneys.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Thereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order and Preliminary Injunction was served via electronic mail only, this 4th day of April, 2024,
upon the following:
Evan R. Downing
Schulze, Cox & Will
110 S. Main St, Marysville, Ohio 43040
edowning@marysvillelawfirm.com
P: 937-644-3849
Attorney for Defendants
/s/ Kirsten M. Cox
Kirsten M. Cox (0102183)
12
IN THE DELAWARE COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT
CIVIL DIVISION
Kyushu Ramen, LLC, ef al., Judge: DavidM. Gormley
Plaintiffs, Case No: 24-CV-C-04-0342
VS.
JKH Eastern Enterprises, LLC, ef al.,
Defendants.
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
This matter came on for hearing before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order. Kyushu Ramen LLC and Kyushu Ramen 23 LLC (collectively, “Kyushu’”)
seek a Temporary Restraining Order against Defendants JKH Eastern Enterprises LLC (“JKH”),
Myungsub J. Hyun (“Mr. Hyun”), and Kim Hyun (“Mrs. Hyun”).
The Court finds that Kyushu and JHK entered into a valid and enforceable lease agreement
(the “Lease”) for the rental of the property situated at 6418 Pullman Drive, Lewis Center, Ohio
43035 (the “Premises”).! The Court further finds that Kyushu is not in default of the Lease and
will suffer irreparable harm if Defendant JHK is not enjoined from using self-help remedies to
change the locks at the Premises.
The Court further finds that Kyushu will suffer irreparable harm if Mr. Hyun and Mrs.
Hyun are not enjoined from accessing the Premises without 48-hours’ notice, absent exigent
circumstances.
For good cause shown, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is hereby
GRANTED
! The Lease is entered into between Kyushu Ramen LLC and JHK Eastern Enterprises LLC, although the Premises
are occupied by Kyushu Ramen 23 LLC.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that
1 Defendant JHK is enjoined from changing the locks and evicting Kyushu from the
Premises.
2 Defendants Mr. Hyun and Mrs. Hyun are enjoined from accessing the Premises
without 48-hours’ notice, absent exigent circumstances.
3 The terms of this Order are fully binding on all Defendants and on their successors,
heirs, assigns, transferees, representatives, trustees, executors, personal representatives,
employees, agents, representatives, subsidiaries, affiliates, parent companies, sister companies,
and/or anyone acting in concert with Defendants.
4 Any violation of this Order shall result in damages to Kyushu, and such damages
are difficult to quantify. Any violation of this Order shall entitle Kyushu to $10,000 in damages
from each violating Defendant for each violation of this Order, or other such damages as Kyushu
can quantify for the Court.
5 Kyushu shall post a bond of $20,000.00 (Twenty Thousand Dollars)
This Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this day of April, 2024.
JUDGE GORMLEY
Preview
IN THE DELAWARE COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT CIVIL DIVISION Kyushu Ramen, LLC, ef al., Judge: David M. Gormley Plaintiffs, Case No: 24-CV-C-04-0342 VS. JKH Eastern Enterprises, LLC, ef al., Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Under Ohio Civil Rule 65(A) and R.C. 2727.02, Plaintiffs Kyushu Ramen, LLC (“Kyushu Ramen”) and Kyushu Ramen 23, LLC (“Kyushu Ramen 23”) (collectively, “Kyushu”) respectfully move this court for a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction against Defendant JKH Eastern Enterprises, LLC (“JKH”), enjoining and restraining it from using self-help remedies to change the locks and evict Kyushu from the property situated at 6418 Pullman Drive, Lewis Center, Ohio 43035 (the “Premises”). Kyushu further seeks to enjoin and restrain Defendants Myungsub J. Hyun (“Mr. Hyun”) and Kim Hyun (“Mrs. Hyun”) from continuing to access the Premises without 48-hour notice to Kyushu, absent exigent circumstances. JKH is attempting to use self-help remedies that are in direct violation of that certain LEASE AGREEMENT (COMMERCIAL) (the “Lease”), dated July 8, 2022, entered into with Kyushu Ramen, LLC. The Lease is attached to the Verified Complaint as Exhibit A. Kyushu is current on all rent obligations and on all other lease obligations. Simply put, Kyushu is not in default of the Lease. As such, JKH must be restricted from taking such inappropriate action, and Mr. and Mrs. Hyun must be restricted in their access to the Premises to prevent further irreparable 1 CLERK OF COURTS - DELAWARE COUNTY, OH - COMMON PLEAS COURT 24 CV C 04 0342 - GORMLEY, DAVID M FILED: 04/04/2024 11:14 AM harm to Kyushu. The grounds for this Motion are more fully set forth in the accompanying Memorandum in Support. Respectfully Submitted, LUPER NEIDENTHAL & LOGAN A Legal Professional Association és/ Kirsten M. Cox Matthew T. Anderson (0082730) Kyle T. Anderson (0097806) Kirsten M. Cox (0102183) 1160 Dublin Road, Suite 400 Columbus, Ohio 43215-1052 Telephone: (614) 221-7663 Facsimile: (866) 345-4948 E-mail: manderson@LNLattorneys.com E-mail: kanderson@LNLattorneys.com E-mail: kcox@LNLattorneys.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT I INTRODUCTION This is an action to enjoin a landlord from using self-help remedies to evict a tenant with the malicious purpose of re-leasing the Premises at an increased rental rate. JKH has manufactured false reasons to evict Kyushu for the sole purpose of terminating the lease so that it can use the benefit of Kyushu’s significant improvements made to the Premises to charge a higher rental rate to a new tenant. This is a tale as old as time — JKH wants the benefit of the improvements made to the Premises at the costs of Kyushu, without having to fulfill its obligations under the Lease. Kyushu is not in default of the Lease. Rather, Kyushu has never missed a rent payment. It is current on all obligations under the Lease, rent and otherwise. Therefore, JHK must be enjoined from using self-help remedies which it continues to threaten, attempting to procure a payment from Kyushu for certain construction costs that are the obligations of Kyushu under the Lease Tn addition, ever since the lease was executed and construction on the Premises began, Mr. and Mrs. Hyun have harassed and menaced Kyushu, with the goal of forcing Kyushu out of the Premises while maintaining the benefit of the improvements made. This harassment includes, among other things, Mr. and Mrs. Hyun showing up at the Premises, without notice, and removing Kyushu’s property, yelling and screaming during business hours, disrupting business, scaring customers, and causing lost revenues. (Verified Complaint, ] 71, 72, 209). This harassment cannot continue and thus, Mr. and Mrs. Hyun must be restricted in the access they have to the Premises by way of an Order requiring 48-hour notice to Kyushu before Mr. and Mrs. Hyun can access the Premises, absent exigent circumstances. IL. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On or around July 8, 2022, Kyushu and JKH entered into the Lease for the rental of the Premises. (Verified Complaint, §] 5, 20). Mr. and Mrs. Hyun are members of JKH and have spoken on behalf of JKH since the inception of the Lease. (Verified Complaint, { 8, 9, 25). Kyushu operates a ramen noodle bar located at the Premises. (Verified Complaint, § 17). The annual base rent for the Lease is believed to be approximately thirty percent (30%) below the then- current market rate for the Premises. (Verified Complaint, J 28). Upon this realization, JKH exhibited buyers-remorse and began the crusade of attempting to run Kyushu out of the Premises with the goal of renting the Premises at a higher rental rate to a new tenant. (Verified Complaint, 429). JKH’s scheme to remove Kyushu from the Premises became more aggressive after Kyushu made significant improvements to the Premises. Pursuant to Article 4(D) of the Lease, and with the approval of JKH, Kyushu spent well over $600,000 to build the Premises for its ramen noodle bar. (Verified Complaint, 7 34). This build-out raised the value of the Premises and turned it into a turnkey business — i.e., a business that’s existing condition allows for immediate operation by a new tenant. Thus, JKH’s goal in forcing Kyushu out is to retain the benefit of the build-out and rent the Premises to a new restaurant owned by a tenant who will pay a higher rental rate. Mr. and Mrs. Hyun took, and continue to take, actions to harass Kyushu in an attempt to make Kyushu want to leave the Premises. This harassment includes Mr. and Mrs. Hyun showing up at the Premises without notice and removing Kyushu’s property, yelling and screaming during business hours, disrupting business, scaring customers, and causing lost revenues. (Verified Complaint, 71, 72, 209). When JKH’s initial plan to harass Kyushu out of the Premises failed, JKH began to manufacture other reasons to evict Kyushu, even though Kyushu is current on all rent payments and has never missed a rent payment. (Verified Complaint, J 112). More specifically, JKH is attempting to evict Kyushu over an increased water bill that was caused by damage to the water line, and the costs of the repair of said water line. In late 2023, a water leak was discovered at the Premises, due to a broken water line. (Verified Complaint, 79). The water line in question was underground and concealed. (Verified Complaint, { 80). Under ARTICLE 5 (MAINTENANCE), of the Lease, JHK’s obligation was to repair the water line at its cost: “LESSOR shall, at its expense and risk, maintain the roof, foundation, underground and otherwise concealed plumbing, concealed utility lines, the structural soundness of the exterior walls, and the parking lot.” (See Exhibit A to the Verified Complaint at Article 5). JHK investigated and repaired the water line but attempted to assess the construction costs of $8,047.09 to Kyushu. (Verified Complaint, {J 82, 105). Under the Lease, however, Kyushu is not obligated to pay for any investigation or construction costs for the repair of the subject water line, which was underground and concealed. Therefore, JKH has no right under the Lease to evict Kyushu from the Premises for refusing to pay for the construction costs. Asa result of the water leak, the Premises incurred significantly high-water utility bills for a period of roughly five (5) months. (Verified Complaint, 84). The water meter for the subject Premises is a shared meter, shared by Kyushu and the Dairy Queen next door. (Verified Complaint, 485). The water account with Del-Co Water Company (“Del-Co”) is in the name of Palakai Inc., the corporation that owns-operates the Dairy Queen. (Verified Complaint, J 86). Kyushu and Dairy Queen had agreed, amongst themselves, to a fair split of the water charges with Kyushu paying directly to Dairy Queen 40% of the water bills each month. (Verified Complaint, § 88, 89, 90). Thus, no payment of water bills should be made to JKH. This situation is contemplated in Article 6 of the Lease: LESSEE shall pay all utility charges used in and about the Premises, said charges to be paid by LESSEE to utility company or municipality furnishing the same, before the same shall become delinquent. Utility charges shall include all gas, electricity, sewer, water, garbage collection and other utilities consumed or wasted upon the Premises. LESSEE shall not permit any lien or claim be filed against LESSOR, or the Premises by reason of such charges. No interruption or curtailment of utility service to the Premises shall be deemed an eviction or disturbance of LESSEE’S use and possession of the Premises, or render LESSOR liable to LESSEE for damages, or relieve the LESSOR of its obligations under the LEASE AGREEMENT. Notwithstanding this, JHK has unfairly, and without sufficient reasoning, demanded money from Kyushu for the increased water charges. (Verified Complaint, J 94). JHK claims that Kyushu owes “full damages” of $18,177.09 for the construction costs and water bills relating to the leak. (Verified Complaint, J 103). JHK is attempting to assess this cost against Kyushu by mere unfounded speculation that Kyushu’s installation of a grease trap ten (10) months prior caused damage to the water line. Kyushu has disputed this accusation as there has been no proof provided as to how the leak occurred and who is responsible for the increase in the electric bill. JHK is now attempting to use this dispute to evict Kyushu. JHK is now threatening to use self-help remedies and change the locks of Kyushu, evicting it from the Premises, based solely on JHK’s erroneous assessment of construction costs and water bill charges to Kyushu. (Verified Complaint, {| 129). Kyushu is making approximately $15,000 per month, on average, in net income by operating its ramen shop at the Premises. (Verified Complaint, J 133). Shutting the doors of Kyushu Ramen 23 would effectively close the ramen bar, permanently, with great harm to Kyushu’s good will and reputation. Thus, Kyushu would suffer great irreparable harm if JHK unlawfully uses alleged self-help remedies. Til. LAW AND ARGUMENT Ohio Civil Rule 65(A) provides as follows: A temporary restraining order may be granted without written or oral notice to the adverse party or his attorney only if (1) it clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result to the applicant before the adverse party or his attorney can be heard in opposition, and (2) the applicant’s attorney certifies to the court in writing the efforts, if any, which have been made to give notice and the reasons supporting his claim that notice should not be required. In determining whether to grant a temporary restraining order, a trial court must consider: (i) whether the movant has a strong or substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his underlying claim; (ii) whether the movant will be irreparably harmed if the order is not granted; (iii) what injury to others will be caused by the granting of the motion; and (iv) whether the public interest will be served by the granting of the motion. Coleman y. Wilkinson, 147 Ohio App.3d 357, 358, 2002-Ohio-2021, 770 N.E.2d 637 (10th Dist.). The grant or denial of an injunction is solely within the trial court’s discretion. Garono vy. State, 37 Ohio St. 3d 171, 173, 524 N.E.2d 496 (1988) A. KYUSHU HAS A SUBSTANTIAL LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS BECAUSE IT IS CURRENT ON ALL LEASE OBLIGATIONS. JHK is threatening to use self-help remedies and change the locks of Kyushu, evicting it from the Premises, based solely on JHK’s erroneous assessment of construction costs and water bill charges to Kyushu. JHK is attempting to use this as a reason to initiate self-help remedies and lock out Kyushu even though Kyushu is, and always has been, current on all rent payments. It is obvious that JHK’s primary goal is to evict Kyushu so that it can re-lease the Premises to a new tenant at a higher rentAL rate. There is no dispute that an enforceable lease exists. As set forth in the Verified Complaint, Kyushu is current on all payments due under the Lease. Therefore, JHK is not permitted to use any self-help remedies because there was no default JHK’s assertion that the unpaid water bill and construction costs are valid reasons to evict are contradictory to the language of the Lease. Under Article 5 of the Lease, JHK’s obligation was to repair the water line at its cost: “LESSOR shall, at its expense and risk, maintain the roof, foundation, underground and otherwise concealed plumbing, concealed utility lines, the structural soundness of the exterior walls, and the parking lot.” Thus, the construction costs cannot be assessed to Kyushu as it is not responsible for such costs under the Lease. As for the costs of the unpaid utility bill, Article 6 of the Lease provides: LESSEE shall pay all utility charges used in and about the Premises, said charges to be paid by LESSEE to utility company or municipality furnishing the same, before the same shall become delinquent. Utility charges shall include all gas, electricity, sewer, water, garbage collection and other utilities consumed or wasted upon the Premises. LESSEE shall not permit any lien or claim be filed against LESSOR, or the Premises by reason of such charges. No interruption or curtailment of utility service to the Premises shall be deemed an eviction or disturbance of LESSEE’S use and possession of the Premises, or render LESSOR liable to LESSEE for damages, or relieve the LESSOR of its obligations under the LEASE AGREEMENT. Thus, even if Kyushu is found to be responsible for the increased water bill (which has not been proven), the Lease prevents JHK from evicting or disturbing Kyushu’s use and possession of the Premises over any unpaid utility charges. It is simple — Kyushu has and continues to fulfill all obligations under the Lease and thus, JHK’s attempt to evict Kyushu is wrongful. JHK’s threat of using self-help remedies to lock Kyushu out of the Premises is unfounded and if it occurs, will amount to a breach of the Lease. If allowed by this Court, the lock-out will result in significant damage to Kyushu. Given the strong likelihood of success on the merits of Kyushu’s claim, Kyushu is entitled to injunctive relief against JHK. Additionally, Mr. and Mrs. Hyun’s continuous harassment of Kyushu is unlawful as it is causing tortious interference with the economic and business relationships that Kyushu has with its customers. As noted above, on several occasions, Mr. and Mrs. Hyun have shown up on the Premises, without notice and uninvited, yelling and screaming during business hours. This has caused Kyushu to lose customers/revenue. Mr. and Mrs. Hyun continue to access the Premises, in their personal and individual capacities, solely to menace and harass Kyushu. These Defendants have no justification at law for interfering with Kyushu’s economic and business relations Kyushu’s claim for such interference has a strong likelihood of success on the merits, and thus, Kyushu is entitled to injunctive relief against Mr. and Mrs. Hyun in order to restrict them from accessing the Premises without 48-hour notice, absent exigent circumstances. B. KYUSHU WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM IF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IS NOT GRANTED. If JHK is permitted to wrongfully use self-help remedies, in direct violation of the Lease, Kyushu will suffer irreparable harm that cannot be rectified. If JHK locks Kyushu out of the Premises, Kyushu will lose significant revenues, estimated to be around $15,000 a month. Additionally, Kyushu will suffer the irreparable harm of a damaged reputation if customers find out that Kyushu has been locked out/evicted from the Premises. Kyushu has several ramen bars in and around the city of Columbus, and any lock-out could result in a damaged reputation for these other locations. This measure of potential damages is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to calculate. As such, irreparable harm is present. This Court must therefore enjoin JHK from using self-help remedies to lock Kyushu out of the Premises as Kyushu will suffer irreparable harm if this is permitted. 9 Further, Mr. and Mrs. Hyun’s ongoing harassment continues to cause Kyushu irreparable harm. Just this past Friday (March 29), Mr. Hyun showed up to the Premises, uninvited and without notice, and removed the anchors outside of the store to prevent Kyushu from hanging lanterns that it had already purchased. This, along with the continuous showing up and causing dramatic scenes in front of the customers, has and continues to interfere with Kyushu’s customer relationships, thus, causing Kyushu irreparable harm. This Court must therefore enjoin Mr. and Mrs. Hyun from accessing the Premises without providing Kyushu with a 48-hour notice, absent exigent circumstances. Cc GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF WILL NOT INJURE OTHERS; RATHER, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SERVES THE PUBLIC INTEREST Preventing JHK from using self-help remedies does not injure the public in any way. Kyushu simply seeks to stop JHK from locking it out of the Premises that it has paid to lease. Additionally, enjoining JHK from exercising such self-help remedies is in the public’s best interest as it would show the Court’s unwillingness to allow landlords to wrongfully evict tenants with the goal of re-renting the Premises at a higher rental price. If this type of conduct was permitted, it would only encourage other landlords to take similar actions, causing harm to the public. To allow a landlord to evict a tenant who has fulfilled its obligations under a lease would set a precedent that would harm the public interest. Self-help remedies were not meant to be used in this manner and it would not be in the public’s best interest to allow such. Requiring Mr. and Mrs. Hyun to give Kyushu 48-hour notice before accessing the Premises also does not injure others. In fact, given the circumstances of this matter, such a requirement will benefit the public interest as to prevent unnecessary disturbance to customers who wish to dine in peace. Customers should not have to be witness to the conduct that Mr. and Mrs. Hyun bring to Kyushu on a regular basis 10 Injunctive relief here will not cause injury to others. Indeed, the contrary holds true. The public interest will better be served by granting injunctive relief to Kyushu. Iv. CONCLUSION In order to prevent further irreparable harm to Kyushu, Kyushu is entitled to injunctive relief against JHK, Mr. Hyun, and Mrs. Hyun. For all the foregoing reasons, Kyushu requests that KH] be enjoined from using self-help remedies to lock Kyushu out of the Premises. Kyushu also requests that Mr. Hyun and Mrs. Hyun be enjoined from accessing the Premises without 48 hours’ notice to Kyushu, absent exigent circumstances. A proposed temporary restraining order accompanies this Motion in Word format and also is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 Respectfully Submitted, LUPER NEIDENTHAL & LOGAN A Legal Professional Association és/ Kirsten M. Cox Matthew T. Anderson (0082730) Kyle T. Anderson (0097806) Kirsten M. Cox (0102183) 1160 Dublin Road, Suite 400 Columbus, Ohio 43215-1052 Telephone: (614) 221-7663 Facsimile: (866) 345-4948 E-mail: manderson@LNLattorneys.com E-mail: kanderson@LNLattorneys.com E-mail: kcox@LNLattorneys.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction was served via electronic mail only, this 4th day of April, 2024, upon the following: Evan R. Downing Schulze, Cox & Will 110 S. Main St, Marysville, Ohio 43040 edowning@marysvillelawfirm.com P: 937-644-3849 Attorney for Defendants /s/ Kirsten M. Cox Kirsten M. Cox (0102183) 12 IN THE DELAWARE COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT CIVIL DIVISION Kyushu Ramen, LLC, ef al., Judge: DavidM. Gormley Plaintiffs, Case No: 24-CV-C-04-0342 VS. JKH Eastern Enterprises, LLC, ef al., Defendants. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER This matter came on for hearing before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Kyushu Ramen LLC and Kyushu Ramen 23 LLC (collectively, “Kyushu’”) seek a Temporary Restraining Order against Defendants JKH Eastern Enterprises LLC (“JKH”), Myungsub J. Hyun (“Mr. Hyun”), and Kim Hyun (“Mrs. Hyun”). The Court finds that Kyushu and JHK entered into a valid and enforceable lease agreement (the “Lease”) for the rental of the property situated at 6418 Pullman Drive, Lewis Center, Ohio 43035 (the “Premises”).! The Court further finds that Kyushu is not in default of the Lease and will suffer irreparable harm if Defendant JHK is not enjoined from using self-help remedies to change the locks at the Premises. The Court further finds that Kyushu will suffer irreparable harm if Mr. Hyun and Mrs. Hyun are not enjoined from accessing the Premises without 48-hours’ notice, absent exigent circumstances. For good cause shown, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is hereby GRANTED ! The Lease is entered into between Kyushu Ramen LLC and JHK Eastern Enterprises LLC, although the Premises are occupied by Kyushu Ramen 23 LLC. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that 1 Defendant JHK is enjoined from changing the locks and evicting Kyushu from the Premises. 2 Defendants Mr. Hyun and Mrs. Hyun are enjoined from accessing the Premises without 48-hours’ notice, absent exigent circumstances. 3 The terms of this Order are fully binding on all Defendants and on their successors, heirs, assigns, transferees, representatives, trustees, executors, personal representatives, employees, agents, representatives, subsidiaries, affiliates, parent companies, sister companies, and/or anyone acting in concert with Defendants. 4 Any violation of this Order shall result in damages to Kyushu, and such damages are difficult to quantify. Any violation of this Order shall entitle Kyushu to $10,000 in damages from each violating Defendant for each violation of this Order, or other such damages as Kyushu can quantify for the Court. 5 Kyushu shall post a bond of $20,000.00 (Twenty Thousand Dollars) This Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this day of April, 2024. JUDGE GORMLEY