COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 73876 APPLIED CONSTRUCTION : TECHNOLOGIES, INC., : ACCELERATED : Plaintiff-Appellant : JOURNAL ENTRY : AND vs. : OPINION : BEAUX CHATEAUX DEVELOPMENT : PER CURIAM CO., : : Defendant-Appellee : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 10, 1998 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: : Civil appeal from : Lakewood Municipal Court : Case No. 97-CVH-1562 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellant: James R. Pearl Mark C. Pirozzi RICHNER & PIROZZI CO., LPA 2771 East Aurora Road Twinsburg, Ohio 44087 For defendant-appellee: Kendra J. Jeske Jeffrey W. Largent LARGENT & COMSTOCK CO., LPA Plaza South Three Building 7271 Engle Road, Suite 101 Middleburg Heights, Ohio 44130 -2- PER CURIAM: Appellant, Applied Construction Technologies, Inc., appeals the trial court's denial of its motion to supplement its complaint after final judgment was entered against appellee, Beaux Chateaux Development Co., a corporation, for breach of contract. Appellant's sole assignment of error states: I. APPLIED STATES THAT THE LAKEWOOD MUNICIPAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING APPELLANT'S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT COMPLAINT (JUDGMENT ENTRY, VOL. 97, PAGE 1216.) In its postjudgment motion to supplement its complaint, appellant attempted to add appellee's officers as new parties to the action which had proceeded to final judgment on the merits and in which appellant received the exact relief prayed for in its complaint. In its appellate brief, appellant acknowledges that it could have filed a lawsuit against appellee's officers in lieu of asking the trial court to allow it to supplement its complaint. A judgment is final once filed with the clerk pursuant to the Civil Rules of Procedure, and, once final, is imbued with a permanent character. Cale Products, Inc. v. Orrvile Bronze & Aluminum Co. (1982), 8 Ohio App.3d 375, 378, 857, 457 N.E.2d 854; see, also, Civ. R. 58. After a final judgment is entered, the trial court may entertain only those motions made pursuant to the Civil Rules of Procedure; e.g., a motion notwithstanding the verdict pursuant to Civ.R. 50(B), a motion for new trial pursuant to Civ.R. 59, or a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60. Pitts v. Dept. Of Transp. (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 378, -3- 380, 423 N.E.2d 1105, 1107. Any other motion is considered a nullity. Id. In this case, appellant's motion to supplement its complaint was not properly made pursuant to the Civil Rules of Procedure. See, Civ.R. 60(B). However, even if appellant had properly moved the court to supplement its complaint, the trial court was well within its discretion to deny appellant's postjudgment motion, if not mandated to do so. Although there exists case law permitting a plaintiff to amend a complaint to add indispensable parties following an order of dismissal, see, e.g., Western Insurance Co. v. Lumbermans Mutual Ins. Co. (1985), 26 Ohio App.3d 137, 499 N.E.2d 1, a party cannot add new parties to an action after a final judgment has been rendered to litigate a separate cause of action. A judgment is final when entered and once final, complete. The Civil Rules of Procedure provide only mechanisms for relief from judgment, not mechanisms to bring new actions against new parties after judgment. In this case, appellant obtained a final judgment in its favor. The action is final, and appellant had no basis to reopen and in effect start a new case against new parties. Judgment affirmed. -4- It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its 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 Lakewood Municipal 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, PRESIDING JUDGE LEO M. SPELLACY, JUDGE JAMES D. SWEENEY, 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 .