DiGiorgio v. City of Cleveland
196 Ohio App. 3d 575
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2011Background
- En banc Cleveland court addressed whether unexplained denial of a motion to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings on sovereign-immunity grounds is a final, appealable order.
- Following Hubbell v. Xenia, the court held that a denial of immunity-related relief can be a final, appealable order under R.C. 2744.02(C).
- Municipal defendants (City of Cleveland and officers) sought review of a trial court’s denial of their Civ.R. 12(B)(6)/motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity.
- The trial court denied the motion without explanation; the question was whether this denial was final and subject to immediate appeal.
- The en banc court concluded that the denial constitutes a final, appealable order under R.C. 2744.02(C), even without the trial court’s stated reasoning.
- The court expressly overruled Young, Wade, and Grassia to the extent they held otherwise, clarifying the finality rule for immunity-denial orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is denial of a motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity final and appealable? | Municipal defendants contend no final order due to lack of explained ruling. | Under Hubbell and §2744.02(C), denial of immunity benefits is a final order. | Yes; such denial is final and appealable. |
| Does Hubbell extend to denials of Civ.R. 12(B)(6) or motions to dismiss without express reasoning? | Titanium Metals control; lack of explanation defeats finality. | Hubbell permits finality regardless of express reasoning when immunity is denied. | Yes; Hubbell controls finality despite lack of explanation. |
| Should prior decisions (Young, Wade, Grassia) be controlling on finality? | Those decisions preclude finality where no written rationale is provided. | Hubbell and subsequent authorities support finality of immunity-denial orders. | No; overruled to the extent they conflict with Hubbell-based finality. |
| What is the scope of the en banc court's consideration in this pass-through proceeding? | Only finality disputes were appropriate for en banc resolution. | En banc concerned with finality; merits remain for a separate panel. | En banc resolved only the finality issue; other issues reserved for merits panel. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hubbell v. Xenia, 115 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio Supreme Court 2007) (final, appealable order under R.C. 2744.02(C) denying immunity benefits)
- Grassia v. Cleveland, 2008-Ohio-3134 (Ohio App. Dist.) (denial without elaboration can fail to show finality; distinguish Hubbell)
- Parsons v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth., 2010-Ohio-266 (Ohio App. Dist.) (final, appealable order under Hubbell where immunity defense denied)
- Fink v. Twentieth Century Homes, Inc., 2010-Ohio-5486 (Ohio App. Dist.) (final, appealable order on immunity denial under Hubbell)
- Summerville v. Forest Park, 2010-Ohio-6280 (Ohio Supreme Court) (recognizes finality principles under 2744.02(C) in immunity contexts)
- Titanium Metals Corp. v. State, 108 Ohio St.3d 540 (Ohio Supreme Court 2006) (trial court must explicitly dispose of immunity issues; otherwise no final order)
- Wade v. Stewart, 2010-Ohio-164 (Ohio App. Dist.) (injury timing predated effective date of 2744.02(C) distinguishes Wade)
- Young v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation & Dev. Disabilities, 2011-Ohio-5358 (Ohio Supreme Court) (decision to overrule on finality issue; jurisdiction declined)
- Rucker v. Newburgh Hts., 2008-Ohio-910 (Ohio App. Dist.) (final, appealable order under Hubbell on dismissal denial)
- Pearson v. Warrensville Hts. City Schools, 2008-Ohio-1102 (Ohio App. Dist.) (final, appealable order under Hubbell on immune-defense denial)