COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 74681 CITY OF CLEVELAND : ACCELERATED DOCKET : Plaintiff-Appellant : JOURNAL ENTRY : -vs- : AND : THE K.O. DRUGS BOXING ACADEMY : OPINION aka THE K.O. DRUGS HIGH : SCHOOL BOXING TOURNAMENT : : Defendant-Appellee : : PER CURIAM Date of Announcement of Decision: NOVEMBER 19, 1998 Character of Proceeding: Civil appeal from Court of Common Pleas Case No. 354806 Judgment: Judgment vacated and remanded. Date of Journalization: Appearances: For Plaintiff-Appellant: SYLVESTER SUMMERS, JR. Director of Law HEATHER GRAHAM-OLIVER Assistant Director of Law City Hall - Room 106 601 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1077 For Defendant-Appellee: LAWRENCE A. SUTTER, ESQ. Reminger & Reminger Co.,L.P.A. 113 St. Clair Building Cleveland, Ohio 44114 PER CURIAM: This appeal is before the Court on the accelerated docket pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc. App.R. 25. -2- Plaintiff-appellant City of Cleveland appeals from the trial court's denial of injunctive relief to the City which sought to enjoin defendant-appellee The K.O. Boxing Academy aka The K.O. Drugs High School Boxing Tournament ( Tournament ) from conducting a boxing tournament without a license. The City contends the trial court erred and abused its discretion in denying temporary and permanent injunctive relief without a hearing. We find merit to the appeal, vacate the judgment and remand for a hearing. The K.O. Drugs High School Boxing Tournament is a youth boxing program for high school age boys founded in 1988 by Charles Nelson in Youngstown, Ohio. The Tournament challenges its participants to remain free from drugs during the six week boxing program. The Tournament proposed for Cleveland at Gray's Armory was scheduled for five consecutive Mondays beginning April 27, 1998 and ending on May 25, 1998. On April 23, 1998, the Tournament submitted an application to the City's Boxing & Wrestling Commission for a permit to hold the tournaments. The application was denied by the Commission because the participating boxers did not have boxing registration passbooks and the program was not sanctioned by the LEA/USA Boxing Association. Mayor White concurred with the denial of the permit. The Tournament was held on April 27, 1998 at Gray's Armory anyway, without incident. Immediately after the April 27, 1998 event, the City's Safety Director approached Patrick Nelson, the promoter/matchmaker of the Tournament, and informed him that he would not be permitted to continue the next scheduled event without -3- a permit from the City. To avoid controversy, Nelson again applied for a permit to the City's Boxing & Wrestling Commission providing all the information requested. Pursuant to the City's investigation of the application, a two hour conference was held between Nelson and one of the City's Boxing Commissioners, Clinton Martin, Jr. Commissioner Martin was assured that the Tournament would employ approved boxing officials, have fighters checked by physicians before and after each match, have licensed paramedics on site, and pay the City's Boxing Commission 5% of the gross proceeds. On April 29, 1998, Nelson received a facsimile transmission from Commissioner Martin stating: They have insurance, belong to one group, have good safety protection, they promise to work with the Lake Erie officials, they also promise to pay 5% of the gross proceeds from the sale of tickets to the match. I see no reason why they should not box. Copies of Commissioner Martin's transmittal were sent to the City Law Department, the Mayor's Office, the Parks & Recreation Department and the Department of Public Safety. On April 30, 1998, Mr. Patrick Nelson received a facsimile transmittal from the City's Parks & Recreation Department. This correspondence was signed by Alvin Jones, another Commissioner of the City's Boxing & Wrestling Commission, who denied the permit and threatened that you may not conduct referenced Boxing Tournament in the City of Cleveland and referred to the reasons given for denying the first application for a permit. -4- On May 4, 1998, the Tournament was held again. The City issued a citation to the Tournament for violating Cleveland City Ordinance S165.02. On May 11, 1998, the City filed for a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief in Federal Court to prevent the Tournament's future boxing events. On that same day, the City filed the exact same pleading in the Common Pleas Court. The Federal Court refused to exercise jurisdiction over the matter. On May 15, 1998, the Common Pleas Court denied the City's motion for all injunctive relief holding that Cleveland Ordinance 165.01 et seq does not provide the City of Cleveland with jurisdiction over interscholastic boxing tournaments such as the one at issue. The City has filed a timely appeal. Plaintiff's sole assignment of error states as follows: I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY NOT FIRST CONDUCTING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING PRIOR TO DENYING THE CITY OF CLEVELAND'S REQUESTS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. Before considering the error assigned by the appellant this court must address the issue of mootness. A review of the record reveals no stay was filed regarding the trial court's denial of the City's injunction and that the boxing tournament was scheduled to end on June 1, 1998. Therefore, any remedy sought by the City regarding that specific boxing tournament would appear to be moot. As the court in James A. Keller, Inc. v. Flaherty (1991), 74 Ohio App.3d 788, 791: [T]he courts of Ohio have long recognized that a court cannot entertain jurisdiction over a moot question. It is not the duty of the -5- court to decide purely academic or abstract questions. However, an exception to the mootness doctrine appears when an issue is capable of repetition yet evades review. Adkins v. McFaul, Warden (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 350. In the case herein, the issue is capable of repetition as it is foreseeable that future youth boxing tournaments will be held in Cleveland. It also evades review as the length of the tournament is short and the children are only permitted to box under the age of eighteen. Therefore, it is reasonable that by the time the appeal on the matter is heard, the issue will always be found to be moot. We therefore proceed to address the merits of the appeal. The City contends the trial court erred in denying its request for injunctive relief without first holding a hearing. The Tournament contends that a hearing was not necessary when the only issue before the court was the interpretation of the Ohio Revised Code and that the Code specifically exempted interscholastic tournaments. It is customary to hold a hearing before granting or denying preliminary or permanent injunctive relief. Indeed, Civ.R. 65 assumes that a hearing will be held before such relief is granted. E.g., Civ.R. 65(A): In case a temporary restraining order is granted without notice, the motion for preliminary injunction shall be set down for hearing at the earliest possible time ***; Civ.R. 65(B)(2): Before or after the commencement of the hearing of an application for a preliminary injunction, the court may order the trial of the action on the merits consolidated with the hearing on -6- the application. As stated in Sea Lakes, Inc. v. Sea Lakes Camping, Inc. (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 472, 476: Based upon the foregoing language in both the rule and the [staff] note, courts in this state have held that a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction is necessary [citations omitted]. See, also, Johnson v. Morris (1995), 108 Ohio App.3d 343, 352 ( Although an evidentiary hearing is not specifically required by Civ.R. 65, the language of the rule strongly suggests that an evidentiary hearing will be held prior to ruling on a preliminary injunction motion. ). Although we are doubtful that the exception for interscholastic boxing (i.e., between school teams) has any application to the tournaments run by appellee, we are without the benefit of any evidence in the record which would support or explain the trial court's ruling. The trial court should have held a hearing before denying the City's request for injunctive relief. The City's sole assignment of error is sustained. Judgment vacated and remanded for a hearing consistent with Civ.R. 65. -7- It is ordered that appellant recover of appellee its costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. JAMES M. PORTER, PRESIDING JUDGE ANN DYKE, JUDGE TERRENCE O'DONNELL, JUDGE N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .