Frank v. Scott's Landscaping

2013 Ohio 4040

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 19, 2013
• Docket: 99359
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Frank v. Scott's Landscaping, 2013-Ohio-4040.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 99359

JOHN J. FRANK PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

vs.

SCOTT’S LANDSCAPING, ETC., ET AL. DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES

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.

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: September 19, 2013 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

John J. Frank, pro se John J. Frank Co., L.P.A. 7377 Magnolia Drive Seven Hills, OH 44131

FOR APPELLEES

Scott’s Landscaping, Etc.

Scott’s Landscaping & Snowplowing Co. c/o Statutory Agent William S. Huebler 3999 Brookside Blvd. Cleveland, OH 44111

William Scott Huebler, a.k.a. Scott

William Scott Huebler 3999 Brookside Blvd. Cleveland, OH 44111 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