NAILAH K.

BYRD
CUYAHOGA COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113

Court of Common Pleas

New Case Electronically Filed: MOTION

August 11,2022 15:47

By: CHRISTOPHER M. DEVITO 0047118

Confirmation Nbr. 2625457

CITY OF BEDFORD, FT AL. CV 22 967300

vs.
Judge: STEVEN E. GALL
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.,
FT AL.

Pages Filed: 11

Electronically Filed 08/11/2022 15:47/ / CV 22 967300 / Confirmation Nbr. 2625457 / CLAJB

 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO

CITY OF BEDFORD, OHIO, etc. et.al. ) CASE NO.

)
Plaintiffs ) JUDGE
)
v. )
) EMERGENCY
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS HEALTH ) MOTION AND AFFIDAVIT FOR
SYSTEM, INC., etc. et. al. ) TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
) AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Defendants )

Plaintiffs, the City of Bedford, Ohio and its Mayor Stan Koci (collectively the “City”), by

and through their undersigned counsel, Morganstem, MacAdams & DeVito Co., L.P.A., seek

exigent injunctive relief of a temporary restraining order, and preliminary and permanent

injunction against Defendant University Hospitals Healthcare System (“UH”), Cliff A.

Megerian, M.D. (“UH CEO”), and other named UH and Individual Defendants, to maintain and

return UH Bedford Hospital to the status quo. In short, Plaintiffs seek an order to immediately

stop the closing of Bedford Hospital (“Hospital”) and any other further plans, regarding closure

of the Hospital.

I. UH LIES AND CLOSES BEDFORD HOSPITAL

As set forth in Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint filed on August 11, 2022, Defendants

fraudulently and in bad faith have circumvented its promises and statements to the City of

Bedford by announcing the closing of the Hospital, contrary to its promises and express

statement to the City during the past year. UH’s construction of Ahuja Hospital in 2011 shows

UH’s pursuit of its self-serving long-term strategy of having a strong presence in affluence

suburbs and carelessly razing Bedford Hospital. UH has disregarded its fiduciary obligations to

Electronically Filed 08/11/2022 15:47 / / CV 22 967300 / Confirmation Nbr. 2625457 / CLAJB

1
EXHIBIT B
 the City and its residents who are the intended beneficiaries of the sole purpose of the Hospital’s

existence.

By closing Bedford Hospital, UH is engaging in blatant redlining and creating a

healthcare desert in an already struggling community. The closing of Bedford Hospital comes as

UH spends $236 million dollars on an expansion at UH Ahuja Medical Center. Closing Bedford

Hospital ceases in-patient hospital care, ceases surgery - even out-patient surgery, and

importantly it closes Bedford’s emergency room. Essentially, the residents of Bedford and

neighboring communities are left with no viable healthcare option in emergency situations, and

will suffer irreparable harm with increased morbidity and mortality rates.

II. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER CIVIL RULES AND COMMON LAW

The City of Bedford is entitled to a temporary restraining order and preliminary

injunction under the Ohio Rules of Civil procedure and common law to stop the closing of UH

Bedford Hospital to maintain the status quo. A temporary restraining order serves as an

equitable policing measure to prevent the parties from harming one another during the

litigation, and to keep the parties as much as possible in their respective positions. Plaintiffs

need injunctive relief to prevent Defendants from causing Plaintiffs irreparable harm until the

litigation is fully adjudicated by the Court. Injunctive relief is appropriate because it

automatically invokes a stay without a bond to maintain the status quo until after a decision on

the merits.

Under Ohio law, this Court must consider and balance the following four factors in

deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction against Defendants:

1. Whether Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood or probability

of success on the merits;

2. Whether Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury if the relief

is not granted;

Electronically Filed 08/11/2022 15:47 / / CV 22 967300 / Confirmation Nbr. 2625457 / CLAJB

2
 3. Whether the preliminary injunction would unjustifiably harm
third parties;

4. Whether the public interest would be served by issuing the

preliminary injunction.

See, e.g., Vanguard Transp. Sys., Inc. v. Edwards Transfer & Storage Co. Gen. Commodities

Div., 109 Ohio App.3d 786, 790, 673 N.E.2d 182 (10th Dist. 1986) (citing Valeo Cincinnati, Inc.

v. N&D Machining Serv., Inc., 24 Ohio St.3d 41, 492 N.E.2d 814 (1986)). See also, Frisch’s

Restaurant, Inc. v. Shoney’s, Inc., 759 F. 2d 1261, 1263 (6th Cir. 1985). These four factors

should be balanced by the Court in order to determine whether injunctive relief is justified. As

shown below, a balancing of these four factors demonstrates that Plaintiffs are entitled to

injunctive relief.

A. Plaintiffs Have a Substantial Likelihood and Probability of Success on the

Merits of Their Protest.

The City of Bedford will be successful in showing that it is the victim of redlining

discrimination, and fraud at the hands of UH. The minority population’s access to equal

healthcare has been blocked and barricaded by private healthcare institution's desire to grow in

affluent neighborhoods. The result is that these minority communities face exacerbated

injuries and higher morbidity rates that can be easily mitigated by equal healthcare access.

Here, UH’s strategic plan to grow UH Ahuja Medical Center, creating a Xanadu for healthcare

in Beachwood, Pepper Pike, Orange, and other affluent surrounding suburbs, while leaving

Bedford without a hospital, is exactly the type of redlining that is harming our minority

populations.

Further, the City of Bedford will be success on the merits of their protest by a simple

review of factors courts review in cases such as this including the lineal distance between the

two hospitals, travel time between the two hospitals, hospital usage, hospital accessibility,

Electronically Filed 08/11/2022 15:47 / / CV 22 967300 / Confirmation Nbr. 2625457 / CLAJB

3
 results of consolidation, and potential harm. See, Earl Jackson et al., v. James F. Conway el

al. 620 F.2d 680 United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Bedford residents are now left to be transported miles away by ambulance, when time

is of the essence, for care to the affluent UH Ahuja Hospital. The extra travel time in patient

transport places the health and safety of the patient at material risk. UH ignores that City

residents consider the Hospital their medical home. UH further ignores that many patients rely

on public transportation for their hospital access. The distance between the Bedford Hospital

and UH Ahuja Hospital is 6.2 (six and a quarter) miles. The approximate 10 (ten) additional

minutes may be detrimental for persons driving themselves, but undoubtedly creates a

substantial issue for persons relying on public transportation, as the shortest commute by

public transportation is 1 (one) hour. The residents of Bedford rely on the Bedford Hospital

emergency room for emergent care. UH Bedford Hospital and UH Ahuja Hospital are located

over 6 (six) miles apart, doubling what is considered a reasonable distance. There is located

adjacent to two main roads in Bedford: Broadway Avenue and Northfield Road. Bedford

Hospital is easily accessible to Bedford residents and is centrally located. Further, the Bedford

Hospital has been a long-standing structure in the community, and the residents of Bedford

detrimentally rely on its healthcare services. Bedford Hospital will be successful in showing

that UH has engaged in redlining and discrimination as the Hospital is focal point of a

community that is the economically challenged and in which the population is predominantly

African American.

B. In the Absence of Injunctive Relief, Plaintiffs Will Suffer Permanent and

Irreparable Harm.

This matter arose because UH has decided to take away the City’s primary healthcare

structure. The harm that Plaintiffs will suffer as a result of the Hospital closure will be

Electronically Filed 08/11/2022 15:47 / / CV 22 967300 / Confirmation Nbr. 2625457 / CLAJB

4
 imminent and lasting on the City of Bedford and surrounding communities.

Bedford, a city that has a long-history with redlining for mortgage loaning, is yet again

facing redlining through healthcare inequality. It is well established that persons living in poorer

communities die at higher premature death rates. Heart disease, America’s leading cause of

death, is often discovered in later stages, when situations are dire. The Journal of the American

Heart Association has shown that for persons experiencing cardiac arrest, survival rates decrease

by more than 50% percent between between a 5 minute ambulance ride and a 10 minute

ambulance ride. Residents of Bedford will now have longer ambulance rides during crucial

moments, further jeopardizing their survival. UH has failed to address Bedford regarding these

higher wait times for emergency care, which will inevitably result in preventable lives now to be

lost.

Indeed, UH is well aware of the relationship between healthcare accessibility and

longevity as seen in in an article published by UH July 14, 2022, where lead heart surgeon Al-

Kindi, M.D. and other researchers at UH Harrington Heart and Vascular Institute concluded,

“there is a direct relationship between relined areas and heart health.” By closing Bedford

Hospital and engaging in its own redlining, UH is reinforcing the narrative that underprivileged

persons disproportionately have a diminished access to healthcare, consequently suffer from

treatable health concerns, and die prematurely. UH is keenly aware of America’s alarming

mortality gap, and is choosing to continue with their self-serving strategic plan with no regard for

the residents of Bedford.

Further, the City relies on the Hospital for local jobs - almost 1000 jobs for City

residents. It’s the City’s largest employer. The Hospital closing also loses almost $1 million

dollars in annual tax revenue for the City creating further financial constraints on the City’s

Electronically Filed 08/11/2022 15:47 / / CV 22 967300 / Confirmation Nbr. 2625457 / CLAJB

5
 already compressed budget. All of these negative factors serve to cause businesses to look to

move out of the City, the domino effect of which plunges the City into poverty.

C. Public Policy Requires Continued Operation of the Hospital to Save Lives.

The Hospital’s life-saving and care-giving services cannot be understated. Further, UH’s

reasons to close Bedford Hospital are unfounded. Currently, UH is experiencing staffing

shortages at all UH hospitals. Abandoning a predominately African American, poorer

population, UH’s flimsy “financial justification” is one that is too often used in hospital closings

such as these, and only adds to the positive correlation that exists between growing African

American communities and disappearances of accessible healthcare for those populations.

Although UH will boast this decision was neutrally made, it is undeniable the disparate impact

the Bedford Hospital closure will have on the predominately African American population of

Bedford. Further, UH’s discriminatory motive is clear by its intent to close the Bedford Hospital,

when at the same time it pours $236 million dollars into expanding UH Ahuja Hospital.

Most significantly, lives will be saved by maintaining an invaluable City asset serving the

Plaintiffs as the Hospital’s intended beneficiaries.

There is no other remedy at the moment, as needless lives will be lost with the forced

closure of the Bedford Hospital. Unless stopped in their tracks, Defendants will continue to move

forward with their strategic plan for major expansion in affluent communities, even in light of

this litigation, as is exhibited by UH’s statements to patients that certain Bedford Hospital

services, including emergency services, will no longer exist effective August 12, 2022.

Defendants’ actions furthermore will cause economic impact damages to the community,

as Bedford Hospital is the City’s largest employer, standing to lose significantly source of tax

revenue, thus serving the further decline of the City plunging it into poverty.

Electronically Filed 08/11/2022 15:47 / / CV 22 967300 / Confirmation Nbr. 2625457 / CLAJB

6
 D. No Third Parties Will Be Unjustifiably Harmed by an Injunction.

Finally, under Ohio law, the Court examines whether innocent third parties will be

unjustifiably harmed by the granting of an injunction. Here, no third parties will be harmed

unjustifiably by a preliminary injunction, except, of course, the third parties that have contracted

with UH to wrongfully close Bedford Hospital, which Hospital intended benefit of the City’s

taxpayers, residents, and the general public as beneficiaries.

III. CONCLUSION

In summary, the closing of Bedford Hospital, in an economically challenged community

where the majority population is African American, and the need for healthcare services and

emergency room services is clear, contrasted against the almost quarter of a billion dollar

expansion of UH Ahuja Medical Center in an affluent neighborhood, is nothing more than

redlining / discrimination.

Consolidation of facilities is sometimes necessary, in situations where a hospital is

underutilized, the hospital is in a remote location and accessibility is an issue, and when a

reasonable distance exists to the consolidating hospital. None of those reasons exist here. UH’s

decision to close the Bedford Hospital lacks merit and is irresponsible, unethical, immoral and

will cause irreparable harm to the residents of Bedford. This decision creates a medical health

desert in the southeast Cuyahoga County, and destroys an already fragile community. Residents

of the City will lose surgery services and emergent medical care. Bedford residents may just

forgo treatment altogether because of the increased hardship in receiving medical care. This

further deepens the already present healthcare inequalities.

Besides the health crisis that will result from the Bedford Hospital closure, the City will

also feel the destructive impact, losing jobs and tax revenue. The domino effect of this closing is

that businesses and only those from upper income brackets (very few residents in Bedford) will

Electronically Filed 08/11/2022 15:47 / / CV 22 967300 / Confirmation Nbr. 2625457 / CLAJB

7
 be able to afford to move out of the City, leaving behind another suburb that much closer to

poverty.

An injunction is necessary and proper as a means temporarily halt this blatant racial

discrimination until the court can properly judge the entire case on its merits

Moreover, Defendants’ actions, jointly and severally, have been commenced with fraud

and/or with an intentional disregard of the harm to Plaintiffs.

Wherefore, Plaintiffs move for a temporary restraining order from this Honorable Court

to maintain and return the status quo in keeping open the Hospital and emergency room.

Plaintiffs’ proposed order would keep the Hospital open, stop the present and future irreparable

harm, and allow for a determination on the merits pursuant to the analysis outlined above.

Plaintiff’s counsel certifies to this Honorable Court that via email communication that

counsel for Defendants has been notified and sent a copy of this filing. Furthermore, any

additional notice is not required because of the irreparable harm that has occurred, and is still

occurring, requiring immediate relief. Plaintiffs also request a preliminary injunction be set

down for a hearing at the earliest possible time, but no later than fourteen (14) days, to take

precedence over all of the matters, except older matters of the same character (i.e. equitable,

emergency, and injunctive nature).

Plaintiffs furthermore are attaching a proposed order for this Court to execute as a

temporary restraining order and to set forth a preliminary injunction hearing date in order to

maintain and return the status quo and to stop the irreparable harm that is affecting Plaintiffs’

interests as beneficiaries of Bedford Hospital.

Defendants’ past and present conduct demonstrates that Plaintiffs will prevail on the

merits of their claims.

Electronically Filed 08/11/2022 15:47 / / CV 22 967300 / Confirmation Nbr. 2625457 / CLAJB

8
 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Christopher M, DeVito

Christopher M. DeVito, Principal (0047118)
Raymond J. Marvar, Of Counsel (0013152)
Morganstern, MacAdams & DeVito Co., L.P.A.
623 West Saint Clair Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44113-1204
Office: 216-687-1212 or 216-621-4244
Mobile: 216-314-7341
ChrisMDeVito@gmail.com
Rjmarvar@gmail.com

A. Steven Dever Co., L.P.A. (0024982)

13363 Madison Avenue
Lakewood, Ohio 44107
Mobile: 440-477-7483
RAstevendever@aol.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Electronically Filed 08/11/2022 15:47 / / CV 22 967300 / Confirmation Nbr. 2625457 / CLAJB

9
 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO

CITY OF BEDFORD, OHIO, etc., et. al. | CASE NO. CV-22-

Plaintiffs | JUDGE

v. I
| PROPOSED JUDGMENT ENTRY FOR
UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL HEALTHCARE | EMERGENCY TEMPORARY
SYSTEMS, etc., et al. | RESTRAINING ORDER

Defendants

This cause came to be heard upon Plaintiffs’ emergency motion for temporary restraining

order and preliminary injunction, supported by an affidavit.

It appearing to the full satisfaction of the Court that this is a proper case for a temporary

restraining order and that Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, or complete remedy at law to give

them relief for those matters complained of in the motion for temporary restraining order; that

unless a temporary restraining order is issued as prayed for in Plaintiffs’ motion, Plaintiffs will

suffer substantial and irreparable harm before the matter can be heard upon Plaintiffs’ motion for

preliminary injunction; that the subject matter is unique; that harm to Plaintiffs, if injunctive

relief is denied, would be greater than the harm to Defendants if subsequent relief is granted;

Plaintiffs have shown the likelihood of success on the merits; and that based upon the foregoing

findings of fact and application of law;

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that a temporary

restraining order maintaining and returning the status quo of keeping Bedford Hospital open

(including the providing inpatient and outpatient services and an emergency room, shall remain

open and in operation until further order of this Court.

Electronically Filed 08/11/2022 15:47 / / CV 22 967300 / Confirmation Nbr. 2625457 / CLAJB

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiffs’ motion

for preliminary injunction will be set down for hearing on the day of August, 2022 at

o’clock, M. at the Justice Center, Courtroom .

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiffs need not

file a bond or other security.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date JUDGE

Prepared by:
Christopher M. DeVito, Principal (0047118)
Raymond J. Marvar, Of Counsel (0013152)
Morganstern, MacAdams & DeVito Co., L.P.A.
623 West Saint Clair Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44113-1204
216-687-1212-Office
216-621-2951 - Facsimile
ChrisMDeVito@gmail.com
Rjmarvar@gmail.com

A. Steven Dever Co., L.P.A. (0024982)

13363 Madison Avenue
Lakewood, Ohio 44107
Mobile: 440-477-7483
steve@astevendever. com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Electronically Filed 08/11/2022 15:47 / / CV 22 967300 / Confirmation Nbr. 2625457 / CLAJB