Preview
OE584 ggranktin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2019 Mar 21 11:28 AM-18CV003043
IN THE FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CIVIL DIVISION
RENEA MURNAHAN-TURNER
Plaintiff, : Case No. 18CVH04-3043
v. : JUDGE HOLBROOK
STATE OF OHIO,
BOARD OF PHARMACY
Defendant.
DECISION AND ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
This matter is before the Court on Defendant State of Ohio, Board of Pharmacy’s
(“Board”) motion for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff Renea Murnahan-Turner
(“Plaintiff”) responded to the motion with her own motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Upon careful review of the motions, the pleadings, and the relevant law, the Court issues
the following decision and entry.
Background
Plaintiff brings this action, pro se, against the Board for its role in the medical
marijuana control program. Within her complaint, Plaintiff seeks an injunction to stop
the application and enforcement of the rules and regulations, as well as the scoring
process and release of the preliminary list for medical marijuana dispensaries. Complaint
at p.1. Such relief is demanded because, according to Plaintiff:
1. Inconsistent with House Bill 523 (codified in R.C. Chapter 3796; the “Statute”), the
Board accepted dispensary applications from pharmacists;
2. Inconsistent with the Statute, the Board accepted applications from out of state
applicants;Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2019 Mar 21 11:28 AM-18CV003043
OE584 - Qi0
3. The Statute’s 15% carve out for economically disadvantaged groups (“EDG”)
discriminates against women;
4. The application fees and start-up costs are actually discriminatory in that they are
cost-prohibitive for EDGs;
5. The legislature and Governor acted illegally when changing marijuana from a
Schedule 1 to a Schedule 2 drug;
6. The Board’s scoring system is unfairly prejudicial to in-state applicants;
7. The Health Department and Liquor Control Commission are better equipped to
handle the medical marijuana licensing process;
8. Repeating the mistakes of the Department of Commerce with the Board would be
“[a]stronomically embarrassing not to mention [the f]inancial damage from all the
lawsuits that would be coming into play from that mistake as well;” Complaint at
qi.
g. Plaintiff is a qualified applicant; however, the Board’s automated application
system refused to accept her application as a result of her lawsuits against the
Board; and
10. Ohio’s medical marijuana industry is a corrupt conspiracy between government
actors, government agencies, and the pharmaceutical companies.
In response to the Complaint, the Board filed a motion to dismiss arguing this
Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims for monetary damages
pursuant to R.C. 2743.01(A)(1). Such motion was denied by decision dated May 30, 2018.
According to the decision, “it is clear from Plaintiffs complaint that her sole demand for
relief is that of an injunction” and thus, the Court retained jurisdiction over the same.Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2019 Mar 21 11:28 AM-18CV003043
OE584 - Qil
The Board now moves the Court for judgment on the pleadings. As grounds in
support of its motion, the Board argues that (1) Plaintiff lacks standing to bring her claim
for injunctive relief; (2) the Court lacks authority to overrule the Statute; and (3) Plaintiff
requests that the Court improperly apply the Statute and corresponding regulations.
Responding, Plaintiff asserts that she personally attempted to apply for a
dispensary license giving her standing to bring her claim. In addition to restating her
position as set forth in the complaint, Plaintiff further argues that the Board’s automated
application system’s refusal to accept her applications, which demonstrates an immediate
and irreparable harm. Thus, Plaintiff, now, requests that this Court award her five
dispensary licenses.
Law and Analysis
Civil Rule 12(C) provides that any party, after the pleadings are closed but within
such time as to not delay the trial, may move the court for judgment on the pleadings.
Determination of a motion for judgment on the pleadings is restricted solely to the
allegations contained within the pleadings and writings attached under Civil Rule 10.
Drozeck v. Lawyer Title Ins. Corp., 140 Ohio App.3d 816, 820 (8th Dist.2000). All
material allegations in the pleadings and any reasonable inference drawn therefrom must
be liberally construed in favor of the non-moving party. Peterson v. Teodosio, 34 Ohio
St.2d 161, 165-166 (1973). “A motion for judgment on the pleadings presents only
questions of law and may only be granted when no material issues of fact exist and the
moving party is entitled judgment as a matter of law.” Anetoman v. OKI Sys., 10th Dist.
No. 10AP-1182, 2012-Ohio-822, 112.
Plaintiff's sole claim in her complaint is one for injunctive relief. To obtain a
permanent injunction like the one Plaintiff demands in her complaint here, a plaintiff
3Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2019 Mar 21 11:28 AM-18CV003043
OE584 - Qi2
must demonstrate with clear and convincing evidence that the injunction is necessary to
prevent irreparable harm, and plaintiff does not have an adequate remedy at law. Proctor
& Gamble Co. v. Stoneham, 140 Ohio App.3d 260, 267-268 (1st Dist. 2000); Ohio Hosp.
Assn. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., 10th Dist. No. o6AP-471, 2007-Ohio-1499, 24.
"Irreparable harm" is an injury for which there is no plain, adequate, and complete
remedy at law, and for which monetary damages would be impossible, difficult or
incomplete. Cleveland v. Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co., 115 Ohio App.3d 1, 12 (1996). In the
context of injunctive relief, "adequate remedy at law" has been defined to mean that "the
legal remedy must be as efficient as the indicated equitable remedy would be; that such
legal remedy must be presently available in a single action; and that such remedy must be
certain and complete." Mid-America Tire, Inc. v. PTZ Trading Ltd., 95 Ohio St.3d 367,
2002-Ohio-2427, 81, citing Fuchs v. United Motor Stage Co., Inc., 135 Ohio St. 509
(1939).
Here, even presuming the factual allegations in the complaint are true and drawing
all reasonable inferences therefrom in favor of Plaintiff, the Court finds that the Board is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiff's complaint does not establish that she
has suffered irreparable harm. Further, Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law. Indeed,
were this Court to order the injunctive relief demanded in the complaint, such relief would
be both incomplete and inefficient as an order enjoining the current dispensary licensing
process will not result in Plaintiff obtaining the licenses she desires. Nor will such an
order alter the Statute or Ohio Administrative Code to reflect the changes that Plaintiff
deems appropriate. Perhaps, most importantly, this Court does not have the authority to
override the Statute or regulations to award Plaintiff such extraordinary relief. Stetter v.
R.J. Corman Derailment Srvce., LLC 125 Ohio St.3d 280, 2010-Ohio-1029, 135
4Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2019 Mar 21 11:28 AM-18CV003043
OE584 - Qi3
(Pursuant to the principles of the separation of powers, it is not the role of the courts to
establish legislative policies or to second-guess the General Assembly’s policy choices).
Because the Court is without authority to award the specific injunctive relief demanded
in the complaint, the Board is entitled to judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C).
Conclusion
Based on the forgoing, the Board’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is
GRANTED and Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED. Plaintiff's
complaint is hereby DISMISSED. The Board’s motion to stay is DENIED as MOOT.
Costs to Plaintiff.
Pursuant to Civil Rule 58(B), the Clerk of Courts is directed to serve upon all
parties notice and the date of this judgment. This is a final appealable order;
there is no just reason for delay.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Electronic notification to counsel of record and plaintiff, pro se.Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2019 Mar 21 11:28 AM-18CV003043
OE584 - Qi4
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
Date: 03-21-2019
Case Title: RENEA MURNAHAN-TURNER -VS- OHIO STATE BOARD
PHARMACY
Case Number: 18CV003043
Type: DECISION/ENTRY
It Is So Ordered.
/s/ Judge Michael J. Holbrook
Electronically signed on 2019-Mar-21 page 6 of 6Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2019 Mar 21 11:28 AM-18CV003043
OE584 - Qi5
Court Disposition
Case Number: 18CV003043
Case Style: RENEA MURNAHAN-TURNER -VS- OHIO STATE
BOARD PHARMACY
Case Terminated: 08 - Dismissal with/without prejudice
Final Appealable Order: Yes
Motion Tie Off Information:
1. Motion CMS Document Id: 18CV0030432018-06-1399970000
Document Title: 06-13-2018-MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON
PLEADINGS - DEFENDANT: OHIO STATE BOARD PHARMACY
Disposition: MOTION GRANTED
2. Motion CMS Document Id: 18CV0030432018-07-0299980000
Document Title: 07-02-2018-MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON
PLEADINGS - PLAINTIFF: RENEA MURNAHAN-TURNER
Disposition: MOTION DENIED
3. Motion CMS Document Id: 18CV0030432018-07-3099910000
Document Title: 07-30-2018-MOTION TO STAY - DEFENDANT:
OHIO STATE BOARD PHARMACY
Disposition: MOTION IS MOOT
Preview
OE584 ggranktin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2019 Mar 21 11:28 AM-18CV003043 IN THE FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CIVIL DIVISION RENEA MURNAHAN-TURNER Plaintiff, : Case No. 18CVH04-3043 v. : JUDGE HOLBROOK STATE OF OHIO, BOARD OF PHARMACY Defendant. DECISION AND ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS This matter is before the Court on Defendant State of Ohio, Board of Pharmacy’s (“Board”) motion for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff Renea Murnahan-Turner (“Plaintiff”) responded to the motion with her own motion for judgment on the pleadings. Upon careful review of the motions, the pleadings, and the relevant law, the Court issues the following decision and entry. Background Plaintiff brings this action, pro se, against the Board for its role in the medical marijuana control program. Within her complaint, Plaintiff seeks an injunction to stop the application and enforcement of the rules and regulations, as well as the scoring process and release of the preliminary list for medical marijuana dispensaries. Complaint at p.1. Such relief is demanded because, according to Plaintiff: 1. Inconsistent with House Bill 523 (codified in R.C. Chapter 3796; the “Statute”), the Board accepted dispensary applications from pharmacists; 2. Inconsistent with the Statute, the Board accepted applications from out of state applicants;Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2019 Mar 21 11:28 AM-18CV003043 OE584 - Qi0 3. The Statute’s 15% carve out for economically disadvantaged groups (“EDG”) discriminates against women; 4. The application fees and start-up costs are actually discriminatory in that they are cost-prohibitive for EDGs; 5. The legislature and Governor acted illegally when changing marijuana from a Schedule 1 to a Schedule 2 drug; 6. The Board’s scoring system is unfairly prejudicial to in-state applicants; 7. The Health Department and Liquor Control Commission are better equipped to handle the medical marijuana licensing process; 8. Repeating the mistakes of the Department of Commerce with the Board would be “[a]stronomically embarrassing not to mention [the f]inancial damage from all the lawsuits that would be coming into play from that mistake as well;” Complaint at qi. g. Plaintiff is a qualified applicant; however, the Board’s automated application system refused to accept her application as a result of her lawsuits against the Board; and 10. Ohio’s medical marijuana industry is a corrupt conspiracy between government actors, government agencies, and the pharmaceutical companies. In response to the Complaint, the Board filed a motion to dismiss arguing this Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims for monetary damages pursuant to R.C. 2743.01(A)(1). Such motion was denied by decision dated May 30, 2018. According to the decision, “it is clear from Plaintiffs complaint that her sole demand for relief is that of an injunction” and thus, the Court retained jurisdiction over the same.Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2019 Mar 21 11:28 AM-18CV003043 OE584 - Qil The Board now moves the Court for judgment on the pleadings. As grounds in support of its motion, the Board argues that (1) Plaintiff lacks standing to bring her claim for injunctive relief; (2) the Court lacks authority to overrule the Statute; and (3) Plaintiff requests that the Court improperly apply the Statute and corresponding regulations. Responding, Plaintiff asserts that she personally attempted to apply for a dispensary license giving her standing to bring her claim. In addition to restating her position as set forth in the complaint, Plaintiff further argues that the Board’s automated application system’s refusal to accept her applications, which demonstrates an immediate and irreparable harm. Thus, Plaintiff, now, requests that this Court award her five dispensary licenses. Law and Analysis Civil Rule 12(C) provides that any party, after the pleadings are closed but within such time as to not delay the trial, may move the court for judgment on the pleadings. Determination of a motion for judgment on the pleadings is restricted solely to the allegations contained within the pleadings and writings attached under Civil Rule 10. Drozeck v. Lawyer Title Ins. Corp., 140 Ohio App.3d 816, 820 (8th Dist.2000). All material allegations in the pleadings and any reasonable inference drawn therefrom must be liberally construed in favor of the non-moving party. Peterson v. Teodosio, 34 Ohio St.2d 161, 165-166 (1973). “A motion for judgment on the pleadings presents only questions of law and may only be granted when no material issues of fact exist and the moving party is entitled judgment as a matter of law.” Anetoman v. OKI Sys., 10th Dist. No. 10AP-1182, 2012-Ohio-822, 112. Plaintiff's sole claim in her complaint is one for injunctive relief. To obtain a permanent injunction like the one Plaintiff demands in her complaint here, a plaintiff 3Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2019 Mar 21 11:28 AM-18CV003043 OE584 - Qi2 must demonstrate with clear and convincing evidence that the injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable harm, and plaintiff does not have an adequate remedy at law. Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Stoneham, 140 Ohio App.3d 260, 267-268 (1st Dist. 2000); Ohio Hosp. Assn. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., 10th Dist. No. o6AP-471, 2007-Ohio-1499, 24. "Irreparable harm" is an injury for which there is no plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law, and for which monetary damages would be impossible, difficult or incomplete. Cleveland v. Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co., 115 Ohio App.3d 1, 12 (1996). In the context of injunctive relief, "adequate remedy at law" has been defined to mean that "the legal remedy must be as efficient as the indicated equitable remedy would be; that such legal remedy must be presently available in a single action; and that such remedy must be certain and complete." Mid-America Tire, Inc. v. PTZ Trading Ltd., 95 Ohio St.3d 367, 2002-Ohio-2427, 81, citing Fuchs v. United Motor Stage Co., Inc., 135 Ohio St. 509 (1939). Here, even presuming the factual allegations in the complaint are true and drawing all reasonable inferences therefrom in favor of Plaintiff, the Court finds that the Board is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiff's complaint does not establish that she has suffered irreparable harm. Further, Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law. Indeed, were this Court to order the injunctive relief demanded in the complaint, such relief would be both incomplete and inefficient as an order enjoining the current dispensary licensing process will not result in Plaintiff obtaining the licenses she desires. Nor will such an order alter the Statute or Ohio Administrative Code to reflect the changes that Plaintiff deems appropriate. Perhaps, most importantly, this Court does not have the authority to override the Statute or regulations to award Plaintiff such extraordinary relief. Stetter v. R.J. Corman Derailment Srvce., LLC 125 Ohio St.3d 280, 2010-Ohio-1029, 135 4Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2019 Mar 21 11:28 AM-18CV003043 OE584 - Qi3 (Pursuant to the principles of the separation of powers, it is not the role of the courts to establish legislative policies or to second-guess the General Assembly’s policy choices). Because the Court is without authority to award the specific injunctive relief demanded in the complaint, the Board is entitled to judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C). Conclusion Based on the forgoing, the Board’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED and Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED. Plaintiff's complaint is hereby DISMISSED. The Board’s motion to stay is DENIED as MOOT. Costs to Plaintiff. Pursuant to Civil Rule 58(B), the Clerk of Courts is directed to serve upon all parties notice and the date of this judgment. This is a final appealable order; there is no just reason for delay. IT IS SO ORDERED. Electronic notification to counsel of record and plaintiff, pro se.Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2019 Mar 21 11:28 AM-18CV003043 OE584 - Qi4 Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Date: 03-21-2019 Case Title: RENEA MURNAHAN-TURNER -VS- OHIO STATE BOARD PHARMACY Case Number: 18CV003043 Type: DECISION/ENTRY It Is So Ordered. /s/ Judge Michael J. Holbrook Electronically signed on 2019-Mar-21 page 6 of 6Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2019 Mar 21 11:28 AM-18CV003043 OE584 - Qi5 Court Disposition Case Number: 18CV003043 Case Style: RENEA MURNAHAN-TURNER -VS- OHIO STATE BOARD PHARMACY Case Terminated: 08 - Dismissal with/without prejudice Final Appealable Order: Yes Motion Tie Off Information: 1. Motion CMS Document Id: 18CV0030432018-06-1399970000 Document Title: 06-13-2018-MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS - DEFENDANT: OHIO STATE BOARD PHARMACY Disposition: MOTION GRANTED 2. Motion CMS Document Id: 18CV0030432018-07-0299980000 Document Title: 07-02-2018-MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS - PLAINTIFF: RENEA MURNAHAN-TURNER Disposition: MOTION DENIED 3. Motion CMS Document Id: 18CV0030432018-07-3099910000 Document Title: 07-30-2018-MOTION TO STAY - DEFENDANT: OHIO STATE BOARD PHARMACY Disposition: MOTION IS MOOT