Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dr. Tobias R. Reid, Ph.D. v. Hisami Johira

October 20, 2011

DR. TOBIAS R. REID, PH.D. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
v.
HISAMI JOHIRA, AGENT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES



Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No. CV-738290

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Eileen A. Gallagher, J.:

Cite as Reid v. Johira,

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT:

DISMISSED

BEFORE: E. Gallagher, J., Blackmon, P.J., and Cooney, J.

{¶1} We lack jurisdiction to review the common pleas court orders that are the subject of this appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

{¶2} Appellant filed a complaint in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas on October 5, 2010, naming as defendants Hisami Johira, Universal Casualty Insurance, the Ohio Department of Transportation, City of Cleveland Traffic Engineering, and the Cuyahoga County Engineer. The complaint sought damages stemming from appellant's involvement in three separate motor vehicle accidents.

{¶3} Defendant "City of Cleveland Traffic Engineering" filed a motion to dismiss on November 17, 2010. The motion was unopposed by appellant and granted on December 3, 2010. On December 1, 2010, appellant filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Although the docket does not reflect that the trial court ruled on that specific motion, on December 6, 2010, appellant filed an amended complaint naming for the first time Public Safety Director, Martin L. Flask, as a representative of City of Cleveland Traffic Engineering ("Flask").

{¶4} On December 16, 2010, the trial court conducted a case management conference wherein the court ordered appellant to properly serve the amended complaint in accordance with the civil rules. The court further ordered the defendants to respond to the complaint by January 7, 2011.

{¶5} The record does not show that service was ever obtained on Flask.

{¶6} On January 10, 2011, appellant filed a motion for summary judgment and default judgment against Flask. Through a special appearance by counsel, Flask opposed appellant's motion, arguing that the court lacked in personam jurisdiction and that he was not a party to the action. The trial court denied appellant's motion on January 24, 2011. The docket does not reveal any further action involving defendant Flask. Appellant presently appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion for summary judgment and default against Flask as well as the trial court's granting of motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment in favor of the remaining parties.

{¶7} Although the issue of jurisdiction was not raised in the briefs of the parties, we address the issue when jurisdiction appears uncertain. Militiev v. McGee, Cuyahoga App. No. 91356, 2009-Ohio-142, at ¶6, citing Kohout v. Church of St. Rocco Corp., Cuyahoga App. No. 88969, 2008-Ohio-1819.

{ΒΆ8} A final order is defined as "an order that affects a substantial right in an action that in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment." R.C. 2505.02(B)(1). An order affects a substantial right if a party is foreclosed from appropriate relief in the future if an appeal were not allowed without delay. Bell v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 60, 63, 616 N.E.2d 181. "When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action * * * 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). "The requirements of both R.C. 2505.02 and Civ.R. 54(B) must be satisfied in order for an entry to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.