[Cite as Ramona v. Safeco Ins., 2021-Ohio-2468.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
GEAUGA COUNTY
BRIAN RAMONA, et al., CASE NO. 2021-G-0011
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
Civil Appeal from the
-v- Court of Common Pleas
JOSHUA J. SCHULTZ, et al.,
Trial Court No. 2019 P 000591
Defendants,
SAFECO INSURANCE, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Decided: July 19, 2021
Judgment: Appeal Dismissed
Brian J. Green, Shapero & Green LLC, Signature Square II, Suite 220, 25101 Chagrin
Boulevard, Beachwood, OH 44122 (For Plaintiffs-Appellants).
William M. Harter and Frank S. Carson, Frost Brown Todd LLC, 10 West Broad Street,
Suite 2300, Columbus, OH 43215 (For Appellee, Safeco Insurance).
Brian D. Sullivan and Aaren R. Host, Reminger Co., L.P.A., 101 West Prospect Avenue,
Suite 1400, Cleveland, OH 44114 (For Appellee, Andrako & Assoc., Inc.).
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.
{¶1} On June 1, 2021, appellants, Brain Ramona and Andrea Boling, appealed
two orders of the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas. We must dismiss this appeal
since the trial court’s orders are not final and appealable orders.
{¶2} Appellants filed an amended complaint alleging numerous claims against
Joshua J. Schultz and other defendants, which included appellees, Safeco Insurance and
Andrako & Assoc., Inc. Andrako moved for summary judgment and Safeco moved for a
partial summary judgment. On May 3, 2021, the trial court granted both motions in two
separate orders. In the order granting Safeco’s motion, the trial court indicates that “[t]he
only claim which remains pending against the Safeco entities is for Underinsured Motorist
insurance proceeds under the automobile policy of insurance issued by Safeco Insurance
Company of Illinois.” Neither order included language that “there is no just reason for
delay” pursuant to Civ.R. 54(B). This appeal ensued.
{¶3} On June 28, 2021, Safeco filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of a
final appealable order. Safeco posits that the trial court entry did not dispose of all the
claims against the parties and the entry did not contain Civ.R. 54(B) language.
{¶4} We must determine if there is a final appealable order since this court may
entertain only appeals from final orders. Noble v. Colwell, 44 Ohio St.3d 92, 96, 540 N.E.2d
1381 (1989). According to Section 3(B)(2), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution, this court
can only immediately review a trial court judgment if it constitutes a “final order” in the
action. Estate of Biddlestone, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2010-T-0131, 2011-Ohio-1299, ¶ 3.
If an order is not final, then an appellate court has no jurisdiction to review it, and the matter
must be dismissed. Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 44 Ohio St.3d 17, 20, 540
N.E.2d 266 (1989). For a judgment to be final and appealable, it must satisfy the
requirements of R.C. 2505.02 and, if applicable, Civ.R. 54(B). See Children’s Hosp. Med.
Ctr. v. Tomaiko, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2011-P-0103, 2011-Ohio-6838, ¶ 3.
{¶5} Civ.R. 54(B) provides the following:
2
Case No. 2021-G-0011
When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action whether
as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, and * * *
when multiple parties are involved, 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. In the absence of a determination that there is no just reason
for delay, any order * * * which adjudicates fewer than all the claims
or the 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 of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and
liabilities of all the parties.
{¶6} This court has held that where there are multiple claims and/or parties
involved, an order entering final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the
claims or parties is not a final, appealable order in the absence of Civ.R. 54(B) language
stating that “there is no just reason for delay[.]” Prady v. Schwartz Construction, Ltd.,
11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2019-A-0004, 2019-Ohio-1168; W. Res. Port Auth. V. Range
Resources-Appalachia, L.L.C., 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2015-T-0036, 2015-Ohio-2903;
{¶7} Here, the May 3, 2021 orders disposed of some but not all the claims and
parties. Also, no Civ.R. 54(B) determination that there is not just reason for delay was
made in the entry. Since the claims against other defendants are still being litigated, no
final order exists at this time.
{¶8} Based upon the foregoing analysis, Safeco’s motion to dismiss is granted,
and this appeal is dismissed for lack of a final appealable order.
{¶9} Appeal dismissed.
THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J.,
JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,
concur.
3
Case No. 2021-G-0011