COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                            NO. 72516
                                        ACCELERATED DOCKET
CHARLES V. LANG                    :
                                   :       JOURNAL ENTRY
          Plaintiff-Appellant      :
                                   :            and
     -vs-                          :
                                   :          OPINION
DREW TRIMBLE-WEBER, ET AL.         :
                                   :        PER CURIAM
          Defendants-Appellees     :
                                   :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT                     DECEMBER 11, 1997
OF DECISION:
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:           Civil appeal from
                                   Common Pleas Court
                                   Case No. CV-317501
JUDGMENT:                          Reversed and Remanded.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:
APPEARANCE:
For Plaintiff-Appellant:           For Defendant-Appellee
    Charles Lang:                      Drew Trimble-Weber:
ERIC H. ZAGRANS, ESQ.              A P LEARY, ESQ.
Zagrans Law Firm                   Newman, Leary & Brice
134 Middle Avenue                  214 East Park Street
Elyria, Ohio 44035                 Chardon, Ohio 44024
For Defendant-Appellee             For Defendant-Appellee
    Gregory D. Fahlman:                Thomas Callaghan:
GEORGE S. COAKLEY, ESQ.            GERALD S. GOLD, ESQ.
BRIAN D. SULLIVAN, ESQ.            1500 Leaker Building
Reminger & Reminger                Cleveland, Ohio 44114
113 St. Clair Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
                                2
PER CURIAM:
     Charles  Lang,  plaintiff-appellant,  raises  the  following
assignment of error for our review:
     I.   THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING CALLAGHAN'S
          MOTION TO  DISMISS  AND FAHLMAN'S  MOTION  TO
          DISMISS.
     Thomas O.  Callaghan, Thomas  O Callaghan  Co., L.P.A.,  and
Gregory   D.    Fahlman,    defendants-appellees    (collectively
 appellees ), were named in a third party complaint that was filed
in Geauga County Court of Common Pleas.  Lang had been  initially
sued in  Geauga County  by Drew Trimble-Weber.   He answered  and
counter-claimed against  her and  filed a  third party  complaint
against appellees.    On  September 17,  1996,  Lang  voluntarily
dismissed his  action against appellees  and within the  one-year
savings clause  refiled the identical  complaint in the  Cuyahoga
County Court of Common Pleas Court.1  On appellees' motions,  the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common dismissed Lang's complaint.  This
appeal  followed.  For  the reasons below,  we reverse the  trial
court's decision.
     This is an accelerated appeal under App.R. 11.1, which denotes
that this court's decision will be brief and conclusory.  Crawford
v. Eastland Shopping Mall Assn. (1983), 11 Ohio App.3d 158.
     The standard of review in this case is whether the trial court
abused its  discretion  in  dismissing Lang's  suit  against  the
appellees.  We conclude the trial court did abuse its discretion.
    1Lang also named Drew Trimble-Weber.  She moved to dismiss
also and her dismissal was granted.  She, however, is not a party
in this appeal.
Cuyahoga County  is not a proper  forum to litigate this  matter.
However, appellees argue Geauga County has exclusive jurisdiction
over  this matter under  C.P. Sup.R. 4  (assignment system).   We
disagree. C.P. Sup.R. 4 applies to assignment of cases refiled in
the same court.  The rule states that a case shall be  filed with
the original judge unless there is  good cause to file it with  a
different judge. The rule by its language contemplates that a case
dismissed and refiled in the same court will be reassigned to the
same judge in that court.  However, it does not apply when a case
is voluntarily dismissed in one county and refiled in a different
county; assuming of course that latter county is a proper forum in
which to litigate the matter.
     Judgment reversed.
     This cause is reversed and remanded.
     It is, therefore, considered that said appellant  recover of
said appellees his costs herein.
     It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to 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.
                         __________________________________
                         __________________________________
                         JOSEPH J. NAHRA, JUDGE
                         __________________________________
                         JOHN T. PATTON, JUDGE
     N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's  decision.
See App.R. 22(B),22(D)  and 25(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
.