COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 78333 YURIKO KAWAGUCHI, Plaintiff-appellant JOURNAL ENTRY vs. AND HON. PATRICIA CLEARY, et al., OPINION Defendants-appellees DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: MAY 21, 2001 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Common Pleas Court, Case No. CV-369172 JUDGMENT: Appeal Dismissed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellant: LINDA ROCKER, ESQ. ACLU of Ohio Foundation, Inc. 5910 Landerbrook Dr. Suite 200 Lyndhurst, Ohio 44124 JOAN M. ENGLUND, ESQ. ACLU of Ohio Foundation, Inc. 1708 Southpoint Drive Cleveland, Ohio 44109 SCOTT GREENWOOD, ESQ. ACLU Foundation, Inc. 1266 West 6th Street Suite 200 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 GEORGE H. CARR, ESQ. GALLAGHER, SHARP, FULTON & NORMAN 1501 Euclid Avenue Bulkley Bldg., Seventh Floor Cleveland, Ohio 44115 For defendants-appellees: THOMAS H. TERRY, III, ESQ. 1370 Ontario Street 2000 Standard Building Cleveland, Ohio 44113 WILLIAM GERSTENSLAGER, ESQ. Gerstanslager & Obert Co. 1995 Huntington Bldg. 925 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44115 WILLIAM D. MASON, ESQ. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor JEFFREY I. SHERWIN, ESQ. Assistant County Prosecutor The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 -3- KARPINSKI, A.J.: Plaintiff-appellant Yuriko Kawaguchi appeals from the trial court's dismissal of a portion of her complaint against defendant- appellee Honorable Patricia Cleary for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.On November 5, 1998, appellant filed a case against appellee in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court alleging in part that Cleary deprived her of her civil rights by taking actions which were not within Cleary's judicial capacity. The facts of this case are long and convoluted. For our purposes here, we need only look at the procedural facts. The appellant's complaint was filed on November 5, 1998. Cleary filed a motion to dismiss on November 27, 1998. On December 15, 1998, appellant filed an amended complaint with leave of court. Cleary never renewed her motion to dismiss in response to the amended complaint, although she did file a reply brief to appellant's February 9, 1999 brief in opposition to the motion. Meanwhile, Cleary's co-defendants also filed motions to dismiss after the amended complaint was filed. On March 31, 1999, the trial court partially granted Cleary's motion to dismiss. The trial court's judgment entry stated in part, [t]his is a ruling on the pending motions of defendants Cuyahoga County Board of Commissioners and Cleary to dismiss the amended complaint. The docket shows that Cleary never renewed her motion to dismiss against the amended complaint. An amended pleading substitutes for or replaces the original pleading. Patlen v. Gardner (Aug. 15, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. -4- 70090, unreported, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 3458, at *4, quoting Steiner v. Steiner (1993), 85 Ohio App.3d 513, 519. Howard v. Weir (Aug. 29, 1978), Franklin App. No. 78AP-359, unreported, 1978 Ohio App. LEXIS 8296. Because she never filed a motion to dismiss after the amended complaint was filed,1 Cleary did not have a valid motion existing at the time the trial court issued its ruling. Because the court cannot rule on a motion which is not validly before it, there is no final appealable order for the appellate court to review. Case dismissed. 1 Although Cleary later filed another motion to dismiss which the court denied, that subsequent motion has no bearing on the case at hand. -5- It is ordered that appellees recover of appellant their costs herein taxed. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. JAMES J. SWEENEY, J., CONCURS; TIMOTHY E. McMONAGLE, J., CONCURS IN JUDGMENT ONLY. DIANE KARPINSKI ADMINISTRATIVE 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. 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). .