Court Opinion

ID: 9966338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-06 18:09:24.57237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:47.163338
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Harris v. City of Kirtland, Inc., 2024-Ohio-1743.]

                  IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                            ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                   LAKE COUNTY

ROBERT HARRIS,                                            CASE NO. 2024-L-033

                  Plaintiff-Appellant,
                                                          Civil Appeal from the
         - vs -                                           Court of Common Pleas

CITY OF KIRTLAND, INC., et al.,
                                                          Trial Court No. 2024 CV 000097
                  Defendants,

CITY OF WILLOUGHBY, INC.,

                  Defendant-Appellee.

                                          MEMORANDUM
                                            OPINION

                                         Decided: May 6, 2024
                                      Judgment: Appeal dismissed

Robert Harris, pro se, P.O. Box 373, Chardon, OH 44024 (Plaintiff-Appellant).

Michael C. Lucas, City of Willoughby Law Director, One Public Square, Willoughby, OH
44094 (For Defendant-Appellee, City of Willoughby, Inc.).

MATT LYNCH, J.

        {¶1}      Appellant, Robert Harris, appeals from a Lake County Court of Common

Pleas entry in which the trial court granted the motion to dismiss of appellee, City of

Willoughby, Inc., Magistrate and Municipal Courts. We hereby dismiss this appeal for the

reasons that follow.

        {¶2}      Appellant initiated a complaint for injunctive relief against appellee as well

as five other defendants, City of Kirtland, Inc., Jake Scott, Michael Valenti, Jamie Fisher,
and Zachary Petric. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss, and the other defendants filed an

answer to the complaint. In the entry on appeal, the trial court granted appellee’s motion

to dismiss. However, the claims against the other defendants remain pending, and no

Civ.R. 54(B) language was affixed to the entry. This appeal ensued.

       {¶3}   We must determine if there is a final appealable order since we may

entertain only appeals from final orders. Noble v. Colwell, 44 Ohio St.3d 92, 96, 540

N.E.2d 1381 (1989). Under Section 3(B)(2), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution, this court

can only immediately review a trial court judgment if it constitutes a “final order.” Patel v.

Huntington Banc Shares Fin. Corp., 11th Dist. Lake No. 2020-L-058, 2020-Ohio-3937, ¶

5. If an order is not final, then a reviewing court has no jurisdiction to review it, and the

case must be dismissed. Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 44 Ohio St.3d 17, 20,

540 N.E.2d 266 (1989). For a judgment to be final and appealable, it must satisfy the

requirements of R.C. 2505.02 and, if applicable, Civ.R. 54(B). See Children’s Hosp. Med.

Ctr. v. Tomaiko, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2011-P-0103, 2011-Ohio-6838, ¶ 3.

       {¶4}   Civ.R. 54(B) states in pertinent part: “When more than one claim for relief is

presented in an action * * * and * * * when multiple parties are involved, the court may

enter final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon

an express determination that there is no just reason for delay. * * *”

       {¶5}   This court has stated that where there are multiple claims and/or parties

involved, an order entering final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the

claims or parties is not a final and appealable order in the absence of Civ.R. 54(B)

language stating that “there is no just reason for delay[.]” Smith v. McKee, 11th Dist.

                                              2

Case No. 2024-L-033
Geauga No. 2023-G-0023, 2023-Ohio-4906; Prady v. Schwartz Construction, Ltd., 11th

Dist. Ashtabula No. 2019-A-0004, 2019-Ohio-1168.

       {¶6}    In this case, the appealed entry disposed of some but not all the claims and

parties. The claims against the other defendants are still pending. Since no Civ.R. 54(B)

determination that there is not just reason for delay was made in the appealed entry, no

final order exists at this time.

       {¶7}    Based upon the foregoing analysis, this appeal is hereby dismissed, sua

sponte, due to lack of a final appealable order.

JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.,

concur.

                                             3

Case No. 2024-L-033