COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 68465 : ACCELERATED DOCKET MARIE F. LONGACRE : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellant : : and -vs- : : OPINION PENTON PUBLISHING COMPANY, et al : : Defendant-Appellees : PER CURIAM : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 21, 1995 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from : Court of Common Pleas : Case No. 261765 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : __________________________ APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellant: WILLIAM L. BLAKE Attorney at Law 900 Rockefeller Building 614 Superior Avenue, N.W. Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For defendant-appellee WILLIAM MICHAEL HANNA Penton Publishing Co.: Attorney at Law 4900 Society Center 127 Public Square Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1304 (Cont.) - 2 - (Cont.) For defendant-appellee FRED POMPEANI Diane Karpinski : Assistant Attorney General State Office Building 615 Superior Avenue, N.W. Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1899 - 3 - PER CURIAM: Appellant William Blake appeals from the imposition of sanctions under R.C. 2323.51 and raises two assignments of error: I. THE COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT APPELLANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO ELECT AS TO WHETHER IT WAS PROCEEDING UNDER CIV.R. 11 OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE UNDER SECTION 2323.51 OF THE REVISED CODE. II. THE COURT ERRED IN AWARDING ATTORNEY FEES TO DEFENDANT AS A CONSEQUENCE OF PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL'S ALLEGED VIOLATION OF R.C. 2323.51. I. This appeal arises out of a workers' compensation proceeding. After the trial court entered summary judgment for the employer, appellee Penton Publishing Company ("Penton"), Blake, who represented the employee, filed a motion for new trial under Civ.R. 59. Penton then moved for sanctions under R.C. 2323.51 and Civ.R. 11. At a hearing, Blake testified that he filed the motion for new trial because he wanted to obtain a reconsideration of the trial court's ruling while tolling the running of the time for filing an appeal. The trial court granted the motion for sanctions under R.C. 2323.51 and denied the motion for sanctions under Civ.R. 11. - 4 - II. In his first assignment of error, Blake contends the trial court erred when it refused to require Penton to elect between R.C. 2323.51 and Civ.R. 11. No basis exists for requiring a party to elect between R.C. 2323.51 and Civ.R. 11. Accordingly, Blake's first assignment of error is not well taken. III. In his second assignment of error, Blake contends the trial court erred when it found his conduct frivolous. We review the imposition of sanctions under R.C. 2323.51 for abuse of discretion. Riley v. Langer (1994), 95 Ohio App.3d 151, 159. "An abuse of discretion connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable." State ex rel. Hillyer v. Tuscarawas Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 94, 97. R.C. 2323.51 provides, in part: (A) As used in this section: * * * (2) "Frivolous conduct" means conduct of a party to a civil action or of his counsel of record that satisfies *** the following: * * * - 5 - (b) It is not warranted under existing law and cannot be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. A motion for new trial after the entry of summary judgment is improper. L.A. & D. v. Lake Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 384, 386-87. We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in concluding that a motion for new trial filed in response to an entry of summary judgment is "not warranted under existing law and cannot be supported by a good faith argument for extension, modification, or reversal of existing law." Accordingly, Blake's second assignment of error is not well taken. Judgment affirmed. - 6 - This cause is affirmed. It is ordered that appellees recover of appellant their costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 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. JAMES D. SWEENEY, PRES. JUDGE JOSEPH J. NAHRA, JUDGE AUGUST PRYATEL, JUDGE* *SITTING BY ASSIGNMENT: August Pryatel, retired Judge of the Eighth Appellate District. N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof, this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, .