COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 70571 WILLIAM TINSLEY : : : PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT : JOURNAL ENTRY : v. : AND : LEPI ENTERPRISES, ET AL. : OPINION : : DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 21, 1996 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Common Pleas Court, No. CV-286276. JUDGMENT: DISMISSED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellant: Brian M. Bartko, Esq. White & Bartko 1382 W. 9th Street 410-S The Crittenden Building Cleveland, OH 44113 For Defendants-Appellees: Deborah B. Capps, Esq. Joseph E. Rutigliano, Esq. Kohrman, Jackson & Krantz One Cleveland Center 1375 E. 9th Street, 20th Floor Cleveland, OH 44114 Eugene B. Meador, Esq. Kitchen, Deery & Barnhouse 1100 Illuminating Building 55 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44113 -3- DAVID T. MATIA, P.J.: William Tinsley, et al., plaintiffs-appellants, appeal the decision of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas granting summary judgment for Lepi Enterprises, Inc. and the city of Cleveland, defendants-appellees. Plaintiffs-appellants raise one assignment of error. The city of Cleveland has also assigned one cross-assignment of error. For the following reasons, this case is dismissed for a lack of a final appealable order. I. STATEMENT OF FACTS The city of Cleveland, defendant-appellee, is the owner of the Burke Lakefront Airport. On October 22, 1992, LEPI Enterprises Inc. (LEPI), defendant-appellee, entered into a contract with the city of Cleveland for the removal of asbestos and replacement of materials at the airport. William Tinsley, plaintiff-appellant, was a subcontractor hired by LEPI to perform work at the airport. On March 18, 1993, William Tinsley, plaintiff-appellant, borrowed a scaffold from LEPI workers who were leaving the job site. Plaintiff-appellant moved the scaffolding and put a ten- foot extension ladder on the top of it. Plaintiff-appellant fell from the ladder and sustained severe injuries. On March 14, 1995, plaintiff-appellant and his wife filed a six count complaint against LEPI and the city of Cleveland, defendants- appellees, alleging various theories of negligence and loss of consortium. On April 26, 1995, the city of Cleveland filed its answer and cross-claim against LEPI based upon contractual and common law indemnification. LEPI subsequently filed its answer. -4- On January 11, 1996, the city of Cleveland filed a motion for summary judgment on its cross-claim against LEPI. The city of Cleveland subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs-appellants. On March 5, 1996, LEPI filed its motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs-appellants. On March 26, 1996, the trial court granted the city of Cleveland's motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs- appellants but denied the City's motion with respect to LEPI. On April 17, 1996, the trial court granted LEPI's motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs-appellants. William Tinsley and his wife, plaintiffs-appellants, timely filed this appeal. II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR William Tinsley, et al., plaintiffs-appellants, state as their sole assignment of error: THE TRIAL COURT DEVIATED FROM THE LAW AND COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT DENIED PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS' BASIC RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY GRANTING DEFENDANT LEPI ENTERPRISES INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Before reaching the merits of the appeal we must first consider whether or not this court has jurisdiction. In the case sub judice, summary judgment had been entered against William Tinsley, et al., plaintiffs-appellants. However, the city of Cleveland had filed a cross-claim against LEPI, defendant- appellee. The city of Cleveland is also attempting to appeal the denial of its motion for summary judgment on the cross-claim. It is well established that the denial of summary judgment does not constitute a final appealable order under R.C. 2505.02. -5- See Celebrezze v. Netzley (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 89, certiorari denied (1990), 498 U.S. 967, 11 S.Ct. 428; Barbara Gielty v. Integrity Builders Inc. (June 15, 1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 67631, unreported. Moreover, with regard to the trial court's journal entry granting summary judgment against plaintiffs- appellants, the trial court did not certify there is "no just reason for delay." See Civ.R. 54(B). Therefore, where claims or actions are still pending between or among some or all of the parties, are not otherwise moot, and the trial court has failed to provide proper certification under Civ.R. 54(B), the entire case is dismissed with the right of reinstatement after obtaining a final appealable order. This case is dismissed. -6- This appeal is dismissed. It is, therefore, considered that said appellees recover of appellant their costs herein taxed. It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to the Common Pleas Court directing 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. DYKE, J. and O'DONNELL, J., CONCUR. DAVID T. MATIA PRESIDING JUDGE N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement .