COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA Nos. 76802 and 77623 ELIZABETH A. HONESS, ET AL. : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiffs-Appellants : : AND vs. : : OPINION NABIL N. GHALI, ET AL. : : Defendants-Appellees : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : MARCH 22, 2001 : CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS : Civil appeal from : Court of Common Pleas : Case No. CV-315703 : JUDGMENT : DISMISSED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiffs-appellants: EDWARD J. HEBEN, JR., ESQ. JOHN C. BRICE, ESQ. Heben & Associates 3740 Euclid Avenue The Life Building, #200 Cleveland, Ohio 44115 EDWARD P. MARKOVICH, ESQ. 4071 S. Cleveland-Massillon Road P.O. Box 1080 Norton, Ohio 44203-9480 -CONTINUED- -2- For defendant-appellee PAUL W. FLOWERS, ESQ. Nabil N. Ghali: Paul W. Flowers Co., LPA 1200 Illuminating Building 55 Public Square Cleveland, Ohio 44113 W. CRAIG BASHEIN, ESQ. Bashein & Bashein 1200 Illuminating Building 55 Public Square Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For defendant-appellee JAMES M. KELLY, III, ESQ. John Bishkin, M.D.: The St. Clair Building 113 St. Clair Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114 BRIAN D. SULLIVAN, ESQ. Reminger & Reminger Co., LPA 113 St. Clair Building Suite 700 Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1273 For defendant-appellee ERIN, STOTTLEMYER GOLD, ESQ. Max P. Gaugean, M.D. RICHARD A. VADNAL, ESQ. Reminger & Reminger Co., LPA 113 St. Clair Building Suite 700 Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1273 -3- FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J.: Appellate courts in Ohio have jurisdiction to review the final orders or judgments of inferior courts within their own district. Section 3(B)(2), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution. It is well established that an order must be final and appealable before it can be reviewed by an appellate court. Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. America (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 17, 20, 540 N.E.2d 266. If an order is not final and appealable, then the appellate court does not possess the jurisdiction to review the matter, and the appellate court must dismiss it sua sponte. Whitaker-Merrell v. Geupel Constr. Co. (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 184, 186, 280 N.E.2d 922. Further, when more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, as found in this instance, the court may enter final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay. Civ.R. 54(B). When, as in this case, a court renders a judgment resolving some but not all of the claims, leaving other claims unresolved, Civ.R. 54(B) applies, and the order from the trial court must comply with R.C. 2505.02 and Civ.R. 54(B) before an appellate court can review the judgment. As there does not exist the 54(B) language in any of the trial court's journal entries, and as there still exist active claims by active plaintiffs, it is with regret that we may not address the issues presented upon appeal since we hold that this court does not -4- have subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. This appeal does not come from a final appealable order. Appellant's appeal is dismissed for lack of a final appealable order. -5- It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, J., CONCURS. DIANE KARPINSKI, A.J., DISSENTS. (SEPARATE DISSENTING OPINION ATTACHED) JUDGE FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR. 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. 22. 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 clerk per App.R. 22(E). See, also S.Ct.Prac.R. II, Section 2(A)(1). COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NOS. 76802, 77623 ELIZABETH A. HONESS, ET AL. : : : Plaintiffs-appellants : : DISSENTING v. : : OPINION NABIL N. GHALI, M.D., ET AL. : : : Defendants-appellees : DATE: KARPINSKI, A.J., DISSENTING: I respectfully dissent because there is a final appealable order in both of these consolidated appeals. The first case was filed as a class action against four defendants, but was never certified as one. Plaintiff was granted leave to file a (second) amended complaint to list all the plainti ffs, but counsel filed it one day after leave to do so expi red. The trial court, however, subsequently declined to dism iss the amended complaint. Even if plaintiffs did not prop erly move for summary judgment against each of the subse- quently named plaintiffs, the trial court dismissed each defendant and the case, with prejudice. Appeal No. 76802 is from the grant of summary judgment to defen dants in two consolidated cases. On July 12, 1999 in Case No. CV-315703, the court dismissed (1) Biskind with prejudice, (2) Gaujean with prejudice; and (3) the case with prejudice. On July -2- 15, 1999, the court also noted in consolidated Case No. CV-328878 (the transferred Shaker municipal case with two additional plaintiffs) that it journalized its rulings on this consolidated case in the earlier filed case and stated case dismissed with prej udice. The trial court may (or may not) have erred in dismissing the defendants and the case, but its rulings disposed of the entire action. There is a final appealable order in Appeal No. 76802. Appeal No. 77623 is from a series of post-judgment motions to vacate the above summary judgment orders. The motions were filed in a similar piecemeal fashion as the motions for summary judg- ment. This court remanded the matter to the trial court several times for rulings on these motions. The trial court ruled as follows: (1) On September 16, 1999 All motions have been ruled on. Case dismissed with prejudice. Case returned to the court of appeals due to final appealable order. (2) On January 7, 2000 All motions have been ruled on and there are no pending matters before this court. Case to be returned to court of appeals or dead file s if court of appeals will not hear appeal. Final. (3) On February 9, 2000 All motions for relief from judgment pursuant to Civ.R.60(B), and 60(A) filed 07/23/99, 8/6/99[,] 8/10/99 and 8/11/99 are denied. No just cause for delay. In short, two defendants were dismissed with prejudice and the case was then dismissed with prejudice. The trial court ther eafter denied all the post-judgment motions. Each order concern ing the dismissal with prejudice and denial of relief is -3- final and appealable. We have jurisdiction and should address the merits of the parties' arguments. .