Defranco v. Shaker Square of Ohio, Unpublished Decision (7-11-2002)
This text of Defranco v. Shaker Square of Ohio, Unpublished Decision (7-11-2002) (Defranco v. Shaker Square of Ohio, Unpublished Decision (7-11-2002)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
{¶ 2} The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows. On April 28, 2000, appellant filed her complaint in common pleas court against each of the appellees named above along with an additional defendant, Joseph Beth Booksellers.1 Defendant, Shaker Square of Ohio, L.L.C. filed an answer, along with a verified counterclaim, requesting a temporary restraining order, both a preliminary and permanent injunction, and restitution of the premises in which appellant's business was a month-to-month tenant.
{¶ 3} The trial court granted appellees' request for a writ of restitution on May 17, 2000, and appellant appealed. After vacating the premises in May 2000,2 appellant voluntarily withdrew her appeal on June 21, 2000. After filing her appeal on May 18, 2000, appellant twice filed amendments to her complaint.3 With the exception of changes not pertinent to this appeal, appellant's third amended complaint is virtually identical with her original complaint. Plaintiff's third amended complaint was properly filed after she withdrew the appeal.
{¶ 4} In her third amended complaint appellant asserts three separate claims against the defendants, namely, breach of contract, fraud/misrepresentation, and defamation. Thereafter, appellees filed their motion to dismiss4 appellant's third amended complaint on September 20, 2000. On August 3, 2001, appellant, pursuant to Civ.R. 41(a)(1), voluntarily dismissed her complaint without prejudice against appellees and Joseph Beth Booksellers. Then on August 10, 2001, the trial court granted appellees' two motions5 to dismiss. Appellant filed a notice of appeal to this court on August 21, 2001. In her appeal, appellant assigns three assignments of error.
{¶ 5} I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING APPELLEES TO MAKE DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS REGARDING APPELLANT AND TO ALLOW THOSE PUBLIC STATEMENTS TO STAND.
{¶ 6} II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING APPELLEES' MOTION TO DISMISS.
{¶ 7} III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING APPELLEES TO INTERFERE IN APPELLANT'S BUSINESS TO SUCH AN EXTENT AS TO CAUSE SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE.
{¶ 8} We need not reach the merits of appellant's claimed errors because the trial court was without jurisdiction to rule on appellees' motion to dismiss. Accordingly, there is nothing in the record before this court from which an appeal can be taken.
{¶ 9} Civ.R. 41(A)(1) permits a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss her action without order of the court "by filing a notice of dismissal any time before the commencement of trial unless the case involves a counterclaim which cannot be independently adjudicated." Goble v.University Hospital of Cleveland (1997),
{¶ 10} In the case at bar, there were no counterclaims left to be adjudicated because they had been rendered moot when appellant vacated the premises. The filing of a voluntary dismissal immediately divests the trial court of jurisdiction. State ex rel. Richard v. Cuyahoga CountyBoard of Commissioners, et al. (1995),
Judgment accordingly.
This cause is vacated.
It is, therefore, ordered that appellant recover of appellees her costs herein taxed.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court 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.
ANNE L. KILBANE, P.J. AND FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J. CONCUR
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Defranco v. Shaker Square of Ohio, Unpublished Decision (7-11-2002), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/defranco-v-shaker-square-of-ohio-unpublished-decision-7-11-2002-ohioctapp-2002.