Lake County judge sides with gyms

Lawsuit against Ohio Health director comes to close

Lake County Common Pleas Court Judge Eugene A. Lucci has sided with 35 gyms across the state in a lawsuit against Ohio Health

Director Amy Acton, allowing them to reopen immediately.

Lucci’s order granting a preliminary injunction prohibits Acton and those responsible for enforcing her directives from “imposing or enforcing penalties solely for non-compliance with the director’s order” against gyms and fitness centers, “so long as they operate in compliance with all applicable safety regulations, whether those in the state’s order, the state’s supplemental guidelines governing businesses like those of the plaintiffs in this case.”

The judge wrote that Acton has “acted in an impermissible arbitrary, unreasonable and oppressive manner without procedural safeguards.”

“(Acton) has quarantined the entire people of the state of Ohio for much more than 14 days,” Lucci wrote. “The director has no statutory authority to close all businesses including plaintiffs’ gyms, which she deems non-essential for a period of two months.”

“The director has no statutory authority to close all businesses including plaintiffs’ gyms, which she deems non-essential for a period of two months.” — Judge Eugene A. Lucci

Several Lake County gyms are plaintiffs in the suit: AIM Performance Training LLC in Mentor, Armstrong Fitness in Madison Village, Ohio Sports and Fitness LLC in Willoughby, Powerhouse Gym of Eastlake, Rock House Fitness LLC in Painesville Township and Frederick’s Fit Factory in Mentor.

Auburn Township-based Everybody’s Gym is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit. The 35 gyms participating in the suit come from across the state, stretching from Ashtabula County to the Cincinnati area.

The lawsuit was filed prior to Governor Mike DeWine announcing plans for gyms to reopen in Ohio May 26. Acton and DeWine ordered non-essential businesses to close effective March 24 due to the novel coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic.

On May 14, DeWine announced the plan for gyms to reopen. Despite that announcement, 1851 Center for Constitutional Law Executive

Director Maurice A. Thompson said the lawsuit would continue. The Columbus-based firm was representing plaintiffs in the suit.

“Our case is also targeted toward making sure that what has happened never happens to gyms or other businesses again, especially because the state has been vocal that there will be a ‘second wave’ down the road,” Thompson said.

Lucci wrote in his order that the general public would be harmed if an injunction was not granted.

“There would be a diminishment of public morale, and a feeling that one unelected individual could exercise such unfettered power to force everyone to obey impermissibly vague, arbitrary and unreasonable rules that the director devised and revised, and modified and reversed, whenever and as she pleases, without any legislative guidance,” Lucci wrote.

“The public would be left with feelings that their government is not accountable to them. Prolonged lockdowns have deleterious effects upon the public psyche. Humans are naturally

social beings; socialization strengthens immunities against disease and benefits psychological health.”

Lucci added that he balanced potential injuries and “finds the harm to the defendants, third parties, and the public is greatly outweighed by the harm to the plaintiffs, their customers, third parties and the public if a preliminary injunction was not granted.”

The Lake County General Health District was named as a defendant in the suit along with Acton.

The health district enforces Acton’s orders in Lake County.

An Ohio Department of Health spokesperson said the department is reviewing the ruling with the Ohio Attorney General’s Office regarding further legal steps.

A spokesman for DeWine said, “the ruling affirms that facilities must follow Ohio Department of Health safety protocols to keep patrons and all Ohioans safe and healthy. These facilities were due to open Tuesday anyways. However, our office disagrees with the ruling’s analysis of law.”