Court Opinion

ID: 9960266
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-15 20:09:19.413998+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:19.660228
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Bahner v. Marketplace Mall, 2024-Ohio-1430.]

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

ROGER BAHNER,                                           CASE NO. 2024-G-0009

                 Plaintiff-Appellant,
                                                        Civil Appeal from the
        - vs -                                          Chardon Municipal Court

THE MARKETPLACE MALL, LLC, et al.,
                                                        Trial Court No. 2022 CVH 00800
                 Defendants-Appellees.

                                        MEMORANDUM
                                          OPINION

                                      Decided: April 15, 2024
                                    Judgment: Appeal dismissed

Roger Bahner, pro se, 7215 South Jester Place, Concord, OH 44077 (Plaintiff-Appellant).

Robert A. Molnar, Oberholtzer & Molnar, LPA, 39 Public Square, Suite 201, Medina, OH
44256 (For Defendants-Appellees).

JOHN J. EKLUND, J.

        {¶1}     Appellant, Roger Bahner, filed a pro se appeal from a January 25, 2024

order, in which a magistrate from the Chardon Municipal Court converted a scheduled

trial to a damages hearing on a motion for sanctions filed by appellees, The Marketplace

Mall, LLC and Maureen Foldesi, against appellant.

        {¶2}     Initially, we must determine whether there is a final appealable order since

this court may entertain only those appeals from final judgments or orders. Noble v.

Colwell, 44 Ohio St.3d 92, 96 (1989). Under Section 3(B)(2), Article IV of the Ohio

Constitution, a judgment of a trial court can be immediately reviewed by an appellate court
only if it constitutes a “final order” in the action. Germ v. Fuerst, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2003-

L-116, 2003-Ohio-6241, ¶ 3. If a lower court’s order is not final, then an appellate court

does not have jurisdiction to review the matter, and the matter must be dismissed. Gen.

Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 44 Ohio St.3d 17, 20 (1989).

       {¶3}   R.C. 2505.02(B) defines a “final order” and sets forth seven categories of

appealable judgment, and if the judgment of the trial court satisfies any of them, it will be

deemed a “final order” and can be immediately appealed and reviewed. Here, the July

18, 2022 order on appeal does not fit within any of the categories for being a final order

pursuant to R.C. 2505.02(B) and did not dispose of all the claims.

       {¶4}   The docket reveals that appellant’s complaint against appellees was

dismissed by the trial court on March 21, 2023 for failure to state a claim, and appellees

voluntarily dismissed their counterclaim on December 11, 2023. The matter of sanctions

remains pending for the trial court to conduct its hearing and issue a ruling, which has yet

to be done.

       {¶5}   Generally, “* * * a magistrate may enter orders without judicial approval if

necessary to regulate the proceedings and if not dispositive of a claim or defense of a

party.” See Civ.R. 53(D)(2)(a)(i). This court has stated that even though a magistrate’s

order is effective without judicial approval, it is not “directly appealable.” Perkins v.

Perkins, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2022-G-0029, 2022-Ohio-3116, ¶ 4. Therefore, a

magistrate’s order is simply interlocutory by nature. Id.

       {¶6}   In this case, the January 25, 2024 magistrate’s order is not a final

appealable order, and this court does not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. The order

                                              2

Case No. 2024-G-0009
is interlocutory. Nothing is preventing appellant from obtaining effective relief through an

appeal once the trial court has entered a final judgment in the action.

       {¶7}   Based upon the foregoing analysis, the order of the trial court is not a final

appealable order. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

EUGENE A. LUCCI, P.J.,

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.,

concur.

                                             3

Case No. 2024-G-0009