Right to Life v. Capital Care Clinic

Amelia Stower is the owner of Capital Care, a registered limited liability company (LLC) under Ohio law. Capital Care employs physicians and other licensed medical professionals who provide medication abortion care to their patients. Capital Care possesses a license from the Ohio State Board of Pharmacy to obtain, possess, and administer abortion-inducing pills on the premises. Ohio law permits LLCs like Capital Care to provide the services it renders.

Plaintiffs Right to Life Action Coalition of Ohio, Greater Toledo Area Right to Life, and Jeffrey Barefoot filed suit against Capital Care and Amelia Stower in the Wood County Court of Common Pleas seeking damages, injunctive relief, and a declaratory judgment on the ground that defendants are engaging in the practice of medicine without a license because neither Capital Care nor Amelia Stower holds a medical license.

Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on Friday, March 5 but provided no notice to the defendants as is required by law. That afternoon, the judge held a hearing on the TRO motion with only plaintiffs’ side represented and took the matter under advisement.

In addition, plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in Wood County, which is an improper venue. No defendant is located in Wood County, and none of the actions on which the lawsuit is based occurred in that county. Accordingly, the case should be transferred to and heard in Lucas County, where venue would be proper.

All of the activities upon which the plaintiffs base their claim (the prescribing of abortifacients and the advertising of medical abortions) are consistent with Ohio’s statutory scheme regarding the practice of medicine by doctors who work for limited liability companies. The Ohio statute forbidding the unauthorized practice of medicine, (R.C. 4731.341(B)), which was invoked by the plaintiffs, applies only to the unauthorized practice of medicine by an individual, not by an LLC or its owner.

The Complaint and a Motion for TRO were filed in the Wood County Court of Common Pleas on March 3, 2021. A TRO hearing was held on March 5 before notice was given to Defendants of the case’s filing. The TRO was denied on March 8. We filed a Motion to Dismiss and Transfer Venue to move the case to the appropriate bench in Lucas County. The Venue Transfer was granted on April 23 and the Motion to Dismiss will be briefed and decided in Lucas County.

The case was transferred to the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas on May 4. Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to our Motion to Dismiss on May 10. We filed our reply on May 14 and now await a decision. Plaintiffs tried to have the case moved to Lucas County’s commercial docket, but their attempt was denied on July 28. A pre-trial hearing was held on August 24. The court indicated that it expected to rule on our pending motion to dismiss by October 7, 2021. The Lucas County Court dismissed the case on August 31 and scheduled a hearing to determine the amount of fees to be awarded us for the improper filing of the original Complaint in Wood County.

On September 30, Plaintiffs appealed to the Sixth District Court of Appeals and the trial court vacated the case management conference on attorney fees pending the outcome. On October 5 we filed a Motion to Dismiss the appeal. The Sixth District declined to dismiss the appeal in an order dated October 26, and instead remanded the case to the trial court for a determination of the fee amount. On October 27, we filed a Motion for Sanctions in the trial court. We then filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the remand order on November 5, to ensure adequate time for the trial court to consider the new sanctions motion. Plaintiffs opposed reconsideration on November 22, and we replied on November 29.

On November 23, on instruction of the appeals Court, the Lucas County Common Pleas court ordered we provide an itemization of attorney fees. We filed the required documentation on December 9. On December 16, the trial court approved the amount of our fee award. On December 22, the Sixth District issued an order remanding the case and staying the appeal for an additional 45 days, for the trial court to resolve our sanctions motion and issue a final appealable order. A hearing on our sanctions motion was held on February 8, 2022, in the Lucas County Court.

Prior to that hearing, on January 31, Plaintiffs filed their own sanctions motion against us. We filed our response on February 14, and they replied on February 21. On March 9, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ sanctions motion, and denied most of Defendants’ motion, except for an award of costs incurred opposing the motion to transfer to the commercial docket.

On April 6, Plaintiffs-Appellants moved to amend their appeal to include the Common Pleas Court’s January 12 order of attorneys fees and the March 9 order of costs. They were granted a stay in the trial court on May 12. Plaintiff-Appellants filed their new merit brief on April 18. We filed our responsive brief on June 7. Appellants filed their reply on June 21. The Court announced on July 26 that a three-judge panel would consider the matter—no oral argument—on August 1. The panel decision was issued on September 16, affirming in part and reversing in part. We now consider next steps.