Frank v. Scott's Landscaping

Full title: JOHN J. FRANK PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT v. SCOTT'S LANDSCAPING, ETC., ET AL…

Court: Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

Date published: Sep 19, 2013

2013 Ohio 4040 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)

Opinion

No. 99359

2013-09-19

JOHN J. FRANK PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT v. SCOTT'S LANDSCAPING, ETC., ET AL. DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT John J. Frank, pro se John J. Frank Co., L.P.A. FOR APPELLEES Scott's Landscaping, Etc. Scott's Landscaping & Snowplowing Co. c/o Statutory Agent William S. Huebler William Scott Huebler, a.k.a. Scott William Scott Huebler

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT:

DISMISSED

Civil Appeal from the

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

Case No. CV-786274

BEFORE: E.A. Gallagher, J., Boyle, P.J., and Rocco, J.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

John J. Frank, pro se
John J. Frank Co., L.P.A.

FOR APPELLEES

Scott's Landscaping, Etc.

Scott's Landscaping
& Snowplowing Co.
c/o Statutory Agent William S. Huebler

William Scott Huebler, a.k.a. Scott

William Scott Huebler EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.:

{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant John Frank appeals from the judgment of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas granting his motion for default judgment against defendant-appellee Scott's Landscaping & Snowplowing Co. ["Scott's"] and dismissing his claims against defendant-appellee William Scott Huebler with prejudice. For the following reasons, we dismiss for lack of a final, appealable order.

{¶2} Appellant's complaint against the above defendants asserted claims for breach of contract, violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act and fraud. Appellant's motion for default judgment, which the trial court granted as to defendant Scott's, sought judgment on the first two claims only. As such, the trial court journal entry from which appellant presently appeals does not address appellant's claim for fraud against Scott's.

It is well established that in a matter in which multiple claims or parties are involved, a judgment entry that enters final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, the pending claims is not a final, appealable order in the absence of Civ.R. 54(B) language stating that "there is no just reason for delay."

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Allen, 2012-Ohio-175, 969 N.E.2d 309, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.). The order appealed from does not dispose of all claims in the case or otherwise note why there should be no just reason for delay. Therefore, this court lacks a final, appealable order from which jurisdiction flows. Whitaker-Merrell Co. v. Geupel Const. Co., 29 Ohio St.2d 184, 186, 280 N.E.2d 922 (1972).

{¶3} This appeal is dismissed.

It is ordered that appellees recover from appellant costs herein taxed.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. _______________
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
MARY J. BOYLE, P.J., and
KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., CONCUR