IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO
Robert A. NeinastPlaintiff,v.Ohio Expositions Commission, et al.,Defendants. :
Case No. 09CVH-01-1082
DECISION AND ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
FILED FEBRUARY 20, 2009
Rendered this 18th day of March, 2009.
This matter is before the court upon the motion of defendants to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Civ. R. 12(B)(l) and (6). Plaintiff filed a memorandum confra and defendants replied. The court has considered all memoranda submitted.
Plaintiff seeks relief claiming that he was wrongfully ejected from the Ohio State Fair for refusing to wear shoes. Plaintiff insists on going barefoot citing health and spiritual benefits. Now, defendants have moved to dismiss this case. It is defendant's position that plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. The court agrees.
In ruling upon a motion to dismiss, the court is required to interpret all material allegations in the complaint as true and taken as admitted. See, e.g., State, ex rel., Alford, v. Willoughby (1979), 58 Ohio St. 2d 221. Only where it is apparent beyond doubt from the face of the complaint that a plaintiff can prove no set of facts upon which recovery could be granted is the movant entitled to dismissal of the action. See, e.g., O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union (1975), 42 Ohio St. 2d 242. To prevent dismissal, plaintiffs are not required to prove their case with evidence, but only to point to some set of facts consistent with the complaint that, if proved, would allow plaintiffs to recover. See, e.g., York v. Ohio State Hwy Patrol (1991), 60 Ohio St. 3d 143.
The Ohio Expositions Commission was created by statute for conducting the Ohio State Fair. See R.C. § 991.01. The statues provides that the Fair operates with events and activities "consistent with the general welfare and interests of the people of the state, and includes such services as are necessary for the care and comfort or amusement of the public. The court agrees with defendants that the Fair's shoe requirement protects both the health and safety of Fair patrons and is consistent with the general welfare of fairgoers. As for plaintiff's request for injunctive relief, the court finds that plaintiff has not shown he is irreparable harmed by the shoe rule.
Upon review, the court finds that plaintiff has state no claim for which relief can be granted, and accordingly GRANTS defendants' motion to dismiss.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Julie M. Lynch
Julie M. Lynch, Judge
Robert A. Neinast
Richard M. Jones, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General