Trachman v. Evans

Opinion

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

DANIEL M. TRACHMAN, CASE NO. 2026-T-0047

Plaintiff-Appellant,

Civil Appeal from the

- vs - Court of Common Pleas

RUSSELL D. EVANS, et al., Trial Court No. 2025 CV 01796 Defendants-Appellees.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Decided: August 24, 2026

Judgment: Appeal dismissed

Daniel M. Trachman, pro se, 831 Gary Avenue, Girard, OH 44420 (Plaintiff-Appellant).

Craig G. Pelini and Erin E. Kelly, Pelini, Campbell & Ricard, L.L.C., 8040 Cleveland Avenue, N.W., Suite 400, North Canton, OH 44720 (For Defendants-Appellees).

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.

{¶1} Appellant filed a complaint against appellees alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, breach of contract, breach of duties and fraud. In a May 4, 2026 entry, the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas granted appellees’ motion to strike exhibits attached to appellant’s response to appellees’ motion to dismiss, appellees’ motion to strike appellant’s amended complaint, appellees’ motion to dismiss appellant’s fraud claim, and appellant’s motion to seal medical records. This appeal ensued.

{¶2} Appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final order. No response to the motion has been filed.

{¶3} We must determine if there is a final appealable order since this court may entertain only appeals from final orders. Noble v. Colwell, 44 Ohio St.3d 92, 96 (1989).

Under Section 3(B)(2), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution, we can only immediately review a trial court judgment if it constitutes a “final order.” Patel v. Huntington Banc Shares Fin. Corp., 2020-Ohio-3937, ¶ 5 (11th Dist.). If an order is not final, then a reviewing court has no jurisdiction to review it, and the case must be dismissed. Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 44 Ohio St.3d 17, 20 (1989). For a judgment to be final and appealable, it must satisfy the requirements of R.C. 2505.02 and, if applicable, Civ.R. 54(B). Children’s Hosp. Med. Ctr. v. Tomaiko, 2011-Ohio-6838, ¶ 3 (11th Dist.).

{¶4} Civ.R. 54(B) states in pertinent part: “When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action . . . and . . . 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.”

{¶5} This court has stated that where multiple claims and/or parties are involved, an order entering final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties is not a final appealable order in the absence of Civ.R. 54(B) language stating that “there is no just reason for delay. . . .” Walker v. Walker, 2025-Ohio-1597, ¶ 5 (11th Dist.).

{¶6} Here, the entry on appeal disposed of some but not all the claims. Since there are claims still pending and no Civ.R. 54(B) determination was made in the May 4, 2026 entry, no final order exists at this time.

{¶7} Based upon the foregoing analysis, appellees’ motion to dismiss is hereby granted, and this appeal is dismissed for lack of a final appealable order.

JOHN J. EKLUND, J., SCOTT LYNCH, J., concur.

PAGE 2 OF 3

Case No. 2026-T-0047

JUDGMENT ENTRY

For the reasons stated in the memorandum opinion of this court, it is ordered that appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED. This appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of a final appealable order.

Costs to be taxed against appellant.

JUDGE ROBERT J. PATTON

JUDGE JOHN J. EKLUND,

concurs

JUDGE SCOTT LYNCH,

concurs

THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY

A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.

PAGE 3 OF 3

Case No. 2026-T-0047