Jasko v. Sirna Constr., Inc.

2026 Ohio 840

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 12, 2026
• Docket: 115287
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Jasko v. Sirna Constr., Inc., 2026-Ohio-840.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

BRIAN JASKO, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 115287 v. :

SIRNA CONSTRUCTION, INC. ET AL., :

Defendants-Appellants. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: DISMISSED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 12, 2026

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No. CV-24-108703

Appearances:

DannLaw, Marc E. Dann, Marita I. Ramirez, and Andrew M. Engel, for appellee.

Shapero & Green LLC, Brian Green, and Sean Burke, for appellant Lake Erie Solutions, LLC.

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, A.J.:

{¶ 1} This case highlights the effect a dismissal without prejudice has on

an interlocutory default judgment issued against fewer than all named defendants.

Defendant-appellant Lake Erie Solutions, LLC (“Lake”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entry denying its motion to vacate a default judgment. After

thorough review of the record and relevant law, we dismiss this appeal for want of a

final, appealable order.

Procedural History and Relevant Facts

A. Complaint

{¶ 2} On December 12, 2024, plaintiff-appellee Brian Jasko (“Jasko”) filed

a complaint against Sirna Construction, Inc. (“Sirna”), EJW Properties, LLC

(“EJW”), Stan Konopa (“Konopa”), and defendant-appellant Lake. The complaint

set forth the following claims against Sirna, EJW, and Lake: 1) breach of contract

and 2) negligence. The complaint set forth the following claims against all

defendants: 3) violation of the CSPA, knowing breach of contract, R.C. 1345.01, et

seq.; 4) violation of the CSPA, failure to perform in a workmanlike manner,

R.C. 1345.01, et seq.; 5) violation of the CSPA, pattern of inefficiency and

incompetence, R.C. 1345.01, et seq.; 6) violation of the CSPA, failure to provide

required receipts, R.C. 1345.01, et seq.; 7) violation of the Home Solicitation Sales

Act and the FTC door-to-door sales rule, R.C. 1345.21, et seq. (“HSSA”); 8) violation

of the CSPA and HSSA R.C. 1345.01, et seq.; and 9) violation of the CSPA Manuson-

Moss Warranty Act R.C. 1345.01, et seq. The final cause of action in the complaint

set forth the following claim against Sirna: 10) violation of the CSPA repair rule,

Adm.Code 109:4-3-05. B. Default Judgment

{¶ 3} On March 3, 2025, the trial court granted Sirna’s motion to dismiss

that it had filed on February 12, 2025. The court also ordered Jasko to file motions

for default against all remaining defendants. Three days later Jasko filed a motion

for default judgment against Lake.1 Four days later, Jasko filed an amended

complaint.

{¶ 4} On March 24, 2025, the trial court called the case for a default

hearing. On the same date, the trial court issued a judgment entry stating, in

relevant part: “Motion for default unopposed and granted. Supp JE to follow[.]” The

court further directed the clerk to “serve this judgment in a manner prescribed by

Civ.R. 5(B). The clerk must indicate on the docket the names and addresses of all

parties, the method of service, and the costs associated with this service.” The clerk

complied the same day.

{¶ 5} On March 31, 2025 the trial court issued a supplemental default

judgment entry. The order provided, in full:

The Court considers the damages related to Plaintiff Brian Jasko’s Motion for Default Judgment, granted against Defendants EJW Properties LLC and Lake Erie Solutions LLC by Order of Reference on March 24, 2025. Following the default hearing on March 24, 2025, and based upon Plaintiff’s written testimony, the Court hereby awards Plaintiff Brian Jasko $23,878.80 in actual damages, $5,000.00 in non- economic damages as per O.R.C. § 1345.09(B), $71,636.40 in treble damages pursuant to O.R.C. § 1345.09(B), and $16,108.02 in attorney fees and costs, to be paid jointly and severally by the Defendants EJW Properties, LLC and Lake Erie Solutions, LLC. Additionally, post-

1 On the same date, Jasko also filed a motion for default judgment against EJW that is not

relevant to this appeal. judgment interest at 5.0% shall be applied from the date of this entry until the debt is satisfied.

IT IS SO ORDERED

{¶ 6} On May 12, 2025, the court clerk filed a certificate of judgment,

certifying the trial court’s March 31, 2025 default judgment entry.

C. Motion to Vacate

{¶ 7} On June 6, 2025, Lake filed a motion to vacate judgment, challenging

the validity of the trial court’s default judgment order against it.2 A week later, the

trial court denied Lake’s motion to vacate.

D. Case Dismissed

{¶ 8} Four days after the trial court denied Lake’s motion to vacate, on

June 17, 2025, the trial court dismissed the remainder of the case without prejudice,

with respect to the remaining claims and defendants for “failure to prosecute.”

E. Notice of Appeal

{¶ 9} On July 2, 2025, Lake filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s

June 13, 2025 judgment entry denying its motion for relief from judgment. Lake

presents the following assignment of error for our review: “The trial court

committed prejudicial error in granting default judgment against [Lake] after an

amended complaint was filed.”

Law and Analysis

2 Lake’s motion states that it sought to vacate the May 12, 2025 certification, but both

parties agreed at oral argument that Lake was actually challenging the trial court’s default judgment order. Jurisdictional Question

{¶ 10} Prior to reviewing the merits of Jasko’s arguments, we must first

determine whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Our jurisdiction “is limited

to final judgments and orders.” C.L.A. v. D.P.M., 2024-Ohio-836, ¶ 19 (8th Dist.),

citing Cooney v. Radostitz, 2021-Ohio-2521, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.). See also Ohio Const.,

art. IV, § 3(B)(2). “Even if neither party raises a jurisdictional question, we must sua

sponte dismiss an appeal if it is not taken from a final appealable order or

judgment.” V.C. v. O.C., 2024-Ohio-344, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.), citing Cooney at ¶ 12 (prior

to a review of the merits, a reviewing court “has a duty to examine, sua sponte,

potential deficiencies in jurisdiction”); see also Scanlon v. Scanlon, 2012-Ohio-

2514, ¶ 5 (8th Dist.) (“In the absence of a final, appealable order, the appellate court

does not possess jurisdiction to review the matter and must dismiss the case sua

sponte.”).

{¶ 11} “For an order to constitute a final appealable order, the requirements

of both R.C. 2505.02, and, if applicable, Civ.R. 54(B) must be met.” GrafTech

Internatl. Ltd. v. Pacific Emps. Ins. Co., 2016-Ohio-1377, ¶ 6 (8th Dist.), citing

Lycan v. Cleveland, 2016-Ohio-422, ¶ 21. “If a trial court's order is not final, then an

appellate court has no jurisdiction to review the matter, and the matter must be

dismissed.” Assunta Rossi Personalty Revocable Living v. Keehan,

2023-Ohio-3710, ¶ 10 (8th Dist.), citing Altenheim v. Januszewksi,

2018-Ohio-1395, ¶ 8 (8th Dist.), citing Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N.Am, 44

Ohio St.3d 17, 20 (1989). {¶ 12} Here, Lake filed a motion to vacate the trial court’s default judgment

order against it that the trial court ultimately denied. Generally, a trial court’s

“judgment overruling a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from a default judgment is a

final appealable order.” Colley v. Bazell, 64 Ohio St.2d 243 (1980), paragraph one

of the syllabus. This presumes, however, that the judgment from which the movant

seeks relief is a final order itself. When the underlying order itself is not a final

judgment “Civ.R. 60(B) is not a proper procedural mechanism for relief and it

cannot be used to convert an otherwise nonfinal judgment into a final appealable

order.” Hack v. Keller, 2015-Ohio-4128, ¶ 10 (9th Dist.), citing Kalapodis v. Hall,

2005-Ohio-2567, ¶ 10 (9th Dist.). If the judgment is not final, the denial of the Civ.R.

60(B) motion requesting the judgment be vacated is also not final. Close v. Perry,

2012-Ohio-2953, ¶ 20 (5th Dist.). See also Bussa v. Hadsel Chem. Processing, LLC,

2016-Ohio-5718, ¶ 9 (4th Dist.), quoting Painter and Pollis, Ohio Appellate Practice,

§ 2:17 (2015) (stating that “where there is no underlying final judgment, an order

purporting to vacate a judgment is not a final order”). As such, “when the judgment

from which relief is sought is not a final appealable order, ‘then the motion is

properly construed as a motion to reconsider and the court’s order granting that

motion is interlocutory.’” Bussa at ¶ 9, quoting Fleenor v. Caudill, 2003-Ohio-6513,

¶ 13 (4th Dist.).

{¶ 13} Thus, we must first determine whether the orders relevant to this

appeal are final, appealable orders. A. The March 31, 2025 Default Judgment

{¶ 14} The trial court’s March 31, 2025 default judgment entry is not a final,

appealable order because it failed to include the mandatory Civ.R. 54(B) language

stating that “there is no just reason for delay.”

{¶ 15} If a case involves multiple parties or multiple claims, an order must

meet the requirements of Civ.R. 54(B) to qualify as a final, appealable order.

Madfan, Inc. v. Makris, 2015-Ohio-1316, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.). Civ.R. 54(B) provides:

When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, and whether arising out of the same or separate transactions, or 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. In the absence of a determination that there is no just reason for delay, any order or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties, shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties, and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.

(Emphasis added.)

{¶ 16} Thus, without “mandatory language that ‘there is no just reason for

delay,’ an order that does not dispose of all claims is subject to modification and is

not final and appealable.” Madfan at ¶ 8, citing Noble v. Colwell, 44 Ohio St.3d 92,

96 (1989), and Deutsche Bank Natl. Co. v. Caldwell, 2011-Ohio-4508, ¶ 9 (8th

Dist.). {¶ 17} Here, the March 31, 2025 default judgment entry was issued by the

trial court against just two of the defendants, Lake and EJW. The claims against

Sirna and Konopa were unaffected by this judgment. Furthermore, the trial court’s

March 31, 2025 default judgment entry does not include the mandatory Civ.R. 54(B)

language that there was “no just reason for delay.” As such, the court’s March 31,

2025 default judgment is not a final, appealable order. Madfan at ¶ 10; Thomas v.

Roush, 2011-Ohio-1705, ¶ 9 (4th Dist.) (finding that the trial court’s failure to

include mandatory Civ.R. 54(B) language that there was no just reason for delay

rendered the judgment not a final, appealable order). Therefore, the trial court’s

denial of Lake’s motion to vacate is also a nonfinal order.

B. The Trial Court’s June 17, 2025 Dismissal Without Prejudice

{¶ 18} On June 17, 2025, the trial court dismissed the case without prejudice

“for failure to prosecute.” Civ.R. 41(B)(3) provides that “[a] dismissal under

division (B) of this rule and any dismissal not provided for in this rule . . . operates

as an adjudication upon the merits unless the court, in its order for dismissal,

otherwise specifies.” (Emphasis added.) “An action dismissed without prejudice for

failure to prosecute is a dismissal otherwise than on the merits, and as such, is not a

final appealable order.” Ebbets Partners, Ltd. v. Day, 2007-Ohio-1667, ¶ 11 (2d

Dist.), citing Thomas v. Freeman, 79 Ohio St.3d 221, 225 fn. 2 (1997) (noting that a

dismissal without prejudice is an adjudication otherwise than on the merits). Since

the trial court’s June 17, 2025 judgment entry was dismissed without prejudice and was not an adjudication on the merits of claims presented, it is not a final, appealable

order.

{¶ 19} When a trial court enters an involuntary dismissal pursuant to

Civ.R. 41(B) that is not on the merits, all pending interlocutory orders are dissolved

upon the dismissal of the case. Auto-Owners Mut. Ins. Co. v. Checker Cab, Inc., 123

Ohio App.3d 104, 109 (6th Dist. July 30, 1996), citing Cent. Mut. Ins. Co. v.

Bradford-White Co., 35 Ohio App.3d 26 (6th Dist. Feb. 20, 1987), syllabus (holding

that “[w]hen the trial court renders a judgment entry without an express

determination that there is no just reason for delay, and where multiple claims

remain pending for adjudication, said entry is dissolved if the court subsequently

enters an involuntary dismissal against the plaintiff’s complaint, pursuant

to Civ.R. 41(B)(1) and otherwise than on the merits”); Persolve Recoveries, LLC v.

Agin, 2021 Ohio App. LEXIS 1681, * 5 (5th Dist. May 21, 2021) (noting that “where

a cause is dismissed without prejudice and otherwise than on the merits pursuant

to Civ.R. 41(B)(1), the parties are left in the same position as if the plaintiff had never

brought the action”). See also Hutchinson v. Beazer E., Inc., 2006-Ohio-6761, ¶ 23

(recognizing that “when an entire action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to

Civ.R. 41(A), as opposed to only certain claims or parties, interlocutory orders which

do not contain Civ.R. 54(B) language that there is no just reason for delay are

dissolved and are not appealable”); May v. Shannon, 2017-Ohio-9361, ¶ 14 (5th

Dist.) (holding that an “[a]ppellant’s dismissal of the action did not create a final

appealable order, but instead nullified the trial court’s interlocutory orders”); Fisher v. Malik, 2015-Ohio-1008, ¶ 18 (10th Dist.) (holding that “a voluntary dismissal

without prejudice under Civ.R. 41(A) as to all defendants renders a prior

interlocutory summary judgment ruling a nullity”).

{¶ 20} The trial court’s June 17, 2025 entry dismissing the case without

prejudice for Jasko’s failure to prosecute is not a final, appealable order. And upon

the entry of the court’s dismissal order, each of the interlocutory orders issued by

the court, including the trial court’s March 31, 2025 default judgment entry that

failed to include the mandatory Civ.R. 54(B) language, were dissolved. There

remains no final, appealable order for this court to review, so this appeal must be

dismissed.

{¶ 21} Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

____________________ MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., and DEENA R. CALABRESE, J., CONCUR