Middlе West Spirits, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gemini Vodka, Ltd., et al., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 20AP-118 (C.P.C. No. 15CV-4310)
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
April 29, 2021
[Cite as Middle West Spirits, L.L.C. v. Gemini Vodka, Ltd., 2021-Ohio-1503.]
LUPER SCHUSTER, J.
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
Rendered on April 29, 2021
On brief: Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, Jay A. Yurkiw, Kathleen Trafford, and Ryan Graham, for appellee. Argued: Jay A. Yurkiw.
On brief: Leigh-Ann M. Sims, for appellants.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
LUPER SCHUSTER, J.
{¶ 1} Defendants-appellants, Gemini Vodka, Ltd., Leigh-Ann M. Sims, and Nicole D. McCormick, appeal from a decision and entry of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denying their combined mоtion for an award of attorneys’ fees under
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On May 20, 2015, Middle West Spirits, an Ohio distillery, filed a complaint against appellants alleging a violation of Ohio‘s Deceptive Trade Practices Act, breach of contract, defamation, fraud, and declaratory judgment. Pursuant to the complaint, Middle West Spirits alleged Sims and McCormick, the co-owners and co-founders of Gemini
{¶ 3} In February 2015, after some time spent in the research and development phase, Middle West Spirits informed appellants it was not going to manufacture or supply vodka for appellants to sell. Middle West Spirits alleged in its complaint that appellants then engaged in a public campaign to disparage Middle West Spirits. After attempting to resolve the matter privately, Middle West Spirits filed the instant complaint. The five claims in the complaint related to Middle West Spirits’ allegations that appellants (1) continued to publicly represent that Middle West Spirits would distill vodka products for them even after contract negotiations failed; (2) distributed samples of the vodka developed by Middle West Spirits during the research and development phase without the authorization of Middle West Spirits; (3) made false statements regarding Middle West Spirits’ conduct during their relationship and about the state of their relationship going forward; (4) falsely represented to have completed the trademark process for their brand name at the time that appellants approached Middle West Spirits with their business prоposal; and (5) falsely claimed to be the sole owner of the specific premix formulation Middle West Spirits developed to make infused vodka.
{¶ 4} In response to the complaint, appellants asserted five compulsory counterclaims against Middle West Spirits, namely (1) violations of
{¶ 5} Both parties subsequently filed motions for summary judgment. In a decision and entry filed February 23, 2018, the trial court denied appellants’ motion for summary judgment, finding there remained genuine issues of material fact for trial on each of Middle West Spirits’ five claims. The trial court also granted in part and denied in part Middle West Spirits’ motion for summary judgment in a separate decision and entry filed the same day, dismissing all of appellants’ counterclaims with the exception of appellants’ claim for tortious interference with contractual relations. Appellants filed motions for
{¶ 6} In the more than four years that the litigation was pending, appellants repeatedly filed motions for sanctions against Middle West Spirits and its counsel. The trial court denied appellants’ requеst for sanctions, finding appellants failed to demonstrate Middle West Spirits had engaged in sanctionable conduct.
{¶ 7} After years of discovery, various motions, changes in counsel for appellants, and continuances, appellants eventually dismissed any remaining counterсlaims they had against Middle West Spirits. This dismissal occurred approximately one month before the scheduled trial date of September 30, 2019. Following appellants’ dismissal of their counterclaims, Middle West Spirits filed on September 10, 2019 a voluntary dismissal with prejudice of the action and аll claims it asserted against appellants. Middle West Spirits noted in its notice of dismissal that its decision to dismiss was motivated by its desire to avoid the additional time and expense of future proceedings given the already substantial passage of time and costs incurred.
{¶ 8} On October 4, 2019, follоwing Middle West Spirits’ dismissal of the action, appellants filed a combined motion for an award of attorneys’ fees under
{¶ 9} In a February 13, 2020 dеcision and entry, the trial court denied appellants’ combined motion for attorney fees under
II. Assignment of Error
{¶ 10} Appellants assigns the following error for our review:
The trial court erred in denying defendants-appellants’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs against the plaintiff and his attorneys under
R.C. §2323.51 andCiv.R. 11 .
III. Analysis
{¶ 11} In their sole assignment of error, appellants argue the trial court erred in denying their motion for attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to
{¶ 12} Appellants’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs was premised on the trial court‘s express authority to sanction under
{¶ 13} Pursuant to
{¶ 14} As used in
(i) It obviously serves merely to harass or maliciously injure another party to thе civil action or appeal or is for another improper purpose, including, but not limited to, causing unnecessary delay or a needless increase in the cost of litigation.
(ii) It is not warranted under existing law, cannot be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, or cannot be supported by a good faith argument for the establishment of new law.
(iii) The conduct consists of allegations or other factual contentions that have no evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are not likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.
(iv) The conduct consists of denials or factual contentions that are not warranted by the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are not reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.
{¶ 15} The standard of review an appellate court uses in
{¶ 16} If a trial court finds frivolous conduct, the court then has discretion to grant or deny a request for sanctions. Gianetti v. Teakwood, Ltd., 10th Dist. No. 17AP-606, 2018-Ohio-1621, ¶ 13, citing Judd v. Meszaros, 10th Dist. No. 10AP-1189, 2011-Ohio-4983, ¶ 19. An appellate court will not reverse a trial court‘s decision to grant or deny a request for sanctions pursuant to
{¶ 17} On appeal, appellants argue that Middle West Spirits filed a meritless complaint, continued to pursue their meritless complaint for several years, and engaged in conduct solely for the purposes of harassment, delay, and intimidation. Appellants point to a list of 57 alleged instances of frivolous conduct, and they assert that Middle West Spirits’ decision to dismiss the action with prejudice just weeks before the scheduled trial date serves as an acknowledgement that it knew its claims were meritless.
{¶ 18} After review of the record, we find no error in the trial court‘s conclusion that Middle West Spirits’ filing of its complaint and subsequent maintaining of the civil action until it ultimately dismissed the action just prior to trial did not constitute frivolous conduct under
{¶ 19} Though appellants rely heavily on Middle West Spirits’ voluntary dismissal of the action with prejudice, their argument ignores appellants’ own prior dismissal of their compulsory counterclaims. Appellants filed a voluntary dismissal of their counterclaims purportedly without prejudice, but, “[g]enerally speaking, a compulsory counterclaim dismissed pursuant to
{¶ 20} Moreover, we are mindful that thrоughout the duration of the litigation, appellants filed no fewer than eight separate motions for sanctions, each of which the trial court considered and denied. Appellants repeat many of the same arguments they made throughout those previous motions in the instant mоtion. We also note that the same judge presided over the entirety of the trial court proceedings, including each of the previous motions for sanctions, and was able to thoroughly consider the record and the parties’ conduct. We agree with the trial court that nоne of appellants’ itemized allegations of allegedly frivolous conduct satisfy the definition of frivolous conduct under either
{¶ 21} For these reasons, we conclude the trial court did not err in finding no frivolous conduct and did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants’ combined motion for sanctions without a hearing. Thus, we overrulе appellants’ sole assignment of error.
IV. Disposition
{¶ 22} Based on the foregoing reasons, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants’ motion for sanctions without a hearing. Having overruled appellants’ sole assignment of error, we affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
Judgment affirmed.
BROWN and KLATT, JJ., concur.