COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 70891 JAMES F. DRISCOLL : : Plaintiff-Appellee/ : Cross-Appellant : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION NORPROP, INC., ET AL. : : Defendants-Appellants/ : Cross-Appellees : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION APRIL 3, 1997 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING Civil appeal from Court of Common Pleas Case No. 269522 JUDGMENT Appeal dismissed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee/ For Defendants-Appellants/ Cross-Appellant: Cross-Appellees: JEFFREY A. KEY, ESQ. TIMOTHY M. BITTEL, ESQ. Martindale, Brzytwa & Quick THOMAS R. KELLY, ESQ. 900 Skylight Office Tower Joondeph & Shaffer 1660 West Second Street Akron Centre Plaza, Suite 700 Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1411 50 South Main Street Akron, Ohio 44308-1881 GEORGE J. SAAD, ESQ. 420 Gemini Tower, II 2001 Crocker Road Westlake, Ohio 44145 - 2 - JAMES M. PORTER, P.J., Defendants-appellants/cross-appellees Norprop Inc., Westlake Office Park Partnership and Cort Shoe Associates, Ltd. appeal from money judgments entered against them in favor of plaintiff- appellee/cross-appellant James F. Driscoll. Plaintiff Driscoll cross-appeals contending the jury award of damages was inadequate. Plaintiff's motion for prejudgment interest was never ruled on. Since the record does not contain a final appealable order, we are compelled to dismiss the appeal. Plaintiff filed suit on April 26, 1994. The case proceeded to a jury trial on March 13, 1996. The jury found in favor of plaintiff. Defendants filed motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, alternatively a new trial. The trial court overruled these motions. Driscoll then filed a motion for prejudgment interest, which was opposed by the defendants, but has yet to be ruled upon by the trial court. Civ.R. 54(B) provides: (B) Judgment Upon Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties. *** [A]ny order that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or 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 or judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties. The court's journal entry appealed from does not contain language that "there is no just reason for delay" pursuant to Civ.R. 54(B). General Acc. Ins. Co. v. Insurance Co. of North - 3 - America (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 17, 20-21; McCabe/Marra Co. v. Dover (1995), 100 Ohio App.3d 139, 160. Therefore, since there has been no ruling on the plaintiff's prejudgment interest motion, the trial court's judgment appealed from is not a final appealable order pursuant to Civ.R. 54(B). See Potts v. Schwartz (July 22, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 63305, unreported; Board of Educ. of South Euclid-Lyndhurst City School Dist. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. (May 11, 1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 67306, unreported at 5; Shore v. Helfrich (June 12, 1992), Lucas App. No. L-91-173, unreported at 7. Appeal dismissed for lack of a final appealable order. - 4 - It is ordered that appellee/cross-appellant recover of appellants/cross-appellees its costs herein taxed. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. KARPINSKI, J., and ROCCO, J., CONCUR. JAMES M. PORTER 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 of decision by the .