[Cite as Patterson v. Nationwide Truck Brokers, Inc. , 2020-Ohio-4803.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) ERIC L. PATTERSON, et al. Appellants

v. NATIONWIDE TRUCK BROKERS, INC., et al.

Defendants

and

SWAGELOK COMPANY WELFARE BENEFITS PLAN Appellee C.A. No. 29715

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CV-2016-11-4897

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: October 7, 2020

CALLAHAN, Presiding Judge. {¶1} Appellants, Eric and Laura Patte rson (“the Pattersons”) appeal an order of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas that determined that it lac ked jurisdiction to consider

their motion for sanctions. This Court reverses.

I. {¶2} The Pattersons filed a complaint against an alleged tortfeasor and related parties after Mr. Patterson was injured in an automobile accident. The complaint also named the Swagelok Company Welfare Benefit Plan (“the Plan”) as a defenda nt, noting that the Plan may2

have paid medical bills on Mr. Patterson’s behalf and requiring the Plan to assert its subrogation rights, if any. The Plan assert ed a right to subrogation and r eimbursement with respect to medical bills that it paid. During the course of the litigation, the P lan produced a summary plan description, but did not produce a plan document. The parties resolved all of the claims at issue and, on July 19, 2017, all claims were dismisse d with prejudice pursuant to a joint stipulation of dismissal. {¶3} On March 7, 2019, the Pattersons filed a motion for sanctions, alleging that in a second, unrelated case, the Plan produced the relevant plan doc ument and that it contradicted the summary plan description provided i n this case with respect to subrogation rights. The trial court

concluded that because this case had been dismissed and the tri al court neither reserved jurisdiction over the settlement nor incorporated the terms of the settlemen t into the dismissal, it did not have jurisdiction to act. The Pa ttersons filed this appeal.

II.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT IT DID NOT RETAIN JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOLLOWING THE VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF ALL CLAIMS PURSUANT TO CIV.R. 41(A). {¶4} In the Pattersons’ sole assignment of error, they argue that th e trial court erred by concluding that it lacked jurisdi ction to consider their motion for sanctions. Specifically, they

maintain that their motion for sanctions raised a collateral is sue that could be considered by the

trial court notwithst anding the stipulate d dismissal with preju dice. {¶5} As a general rule, a trial cour t does not have jurisdiction ove r a case once a final judgment has been entered, but m ay act when specific authority is granted it to do so. Palmer v.

Bowers , 9th Dist. Lorain No. 15CA010836, 2017-Ohio-355, ¶ 10. Simila rly, a trial court does not have jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement after a dis missal has been entered unless3

jurisdiction to do so was reserved in the dismissal or the term s of the settlement were incorporated

therein. Infinite Security Solutions, L.L.C. v. Karam Properties II, Ltd. , 143 Ohio St.3d 346, 2015- Ohio-1101, syllabus. In various c ircumstances, however, courts have also concluded that after a dismissal, a trial court may consider a motion for sanctions be cause such a motion is collateral to the proceedings. See , e.g. , Sunrise Coop., Inc. v. Joppeck , 9th Dist. Lorain No. 16CA010984, 2017-Ohio-7654, ¶ 21 (concluding tha t a motion for sanctions ca n be considered after a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the case); Ohio Civ. Rights Comm. v. GMS Mgt. Co.,

Inc. , 9th Dist. Summit No. 19814, 2000 WL 840495, *2 (June 28, 2000 ), quoting Baker v.

USS/Kobe Steel Co. , 9th Dist. Lorain No. 98CA007151, 2000 WL 14044, *2 (Jan. 5, 2000); (noting that courts retain jurisdiction after a voluntary dismissal to consider motions for sanctions under R.C. 2323.51 and Civ.R. 11); Lewis v. Celina Fin. Corp. , 101 Ohio App.3d 464, 470 (3d Dist.1995) (recognizing that a motion for sanctions can be considered afte r a voluntary dismissal because “any other result would permit a party to voluntarily dismiss a n action to evade an award of sanctions[.]”). See generally State ex rel. Hummel v. Sadler , 96 Ohio St.3d 84, 2002-Ohio-3605, ¶ 23; State ex rel. Corn v. Russo , 90 Ohio St.3d 551, 556 (2001)

. {¶6} The trial court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consid er the Pattersons’ motion for sanctions without considering whether it was a colla teral motion that could be considered after the stipulated dismissal. In this respect, th is Court agrees that the trial court erred,

but we decline to consider that question in the first instance. See Allen v. Bennet , 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 23570, 23573, 23576, 2007-Ohio-5411, ¶ 21. Likewise, this Court makes no determination regarding the merits of the Pattersons’ motion. {¶7} The Pattersons’ assignment of error is sustained.4

III. {¶8} The Pattersons’ assignment of erro r is sustained, and the judgm ent of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas is reversed. This matter is reman ded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this Court’s resolution of the Patt ersons’ assignment of error. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, direc ting the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27. Immediately upon the filing hereof , this document shall consti tute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file s tamped by the Clerk of the Cour t of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to m ake a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. Costs taxed to Appellee.

LYNNE S. CALL AHAN FOR THE COURT

SCHAFER, J. TEODOSIO, J. CONCUR.5

APPEARANCES: BENJAMIN P. PFOUTS, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

SHAUN D. BYROADS and DAR AN KIEFER, Attorneys at Law, for Appell ee.