Jones v. Gori
123 N.E.3d 324
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Kathleen Jones sued Randy Gori and others in Warren County (Ohio) for legal malpractice arising from an underlying Illinois asbestos case.
- Gori defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the trial court denied the motion on June 7, 2018.
- Gori appealed the denial on July 6, 2018. The trial court then issued an order deeming its June 7 entry a final appealable order, citing this court’s prior decision in Huegemann v. VanBakel.
- Jones moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final appealable order. Gori opposed, relying in part on Huegemann (which had held such denials could be final under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4)).
- The panel reviewed Huegemann in light of contrary decisions from other Ohio districts and Ohio Supreme Court guidance, concluded Huegemann was incorrectly decided, and dismissed Gori’s appeal with prejudice for lack of a final appealable order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is a final appealable order under R.C. 2505.02 | Jones: Denial is not a final appealable order; appeal should be dismissed | Gori: Denial qualifies as a provisional remedy / final order (relying on Huegemann) | Denial of such a motion is not a final appealable order here; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether Huegemann v. VanBakel remains good law in this district | Jones: Huegemann should not be followed; contrary precedent exists | Gori: Huegemann supports immediate appealability in these circumstances | Court overruled Huegemann as incorrectly decided and refused to follow it |
| Whether litigants face an inadequate remedy at law absent immediate appeal of jurisdictional denial | Jones: Post-judgment appeal provides adequate remedy | Gori: Potential costs/delay justify immediate appeal | Court held post-judgment appeal is an adequate remedy absent rare, unique facts; no meaningful and effective remedy shown here |
| Whether unique facts could justify treating a jurisdictional denial as final | Jones: Not applicable here given parties’ proximity | Gori: (implicitly) circumstances may warrant | Concurrence noted unique factual scenarios might warrant different outcome, but not present in this case |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Toma v. Corrigan, 92 Ohio St.3d 589 (Ohio 2001) (post-judgment appeal ordinarily provides an adequate remedy when personal jurisdiction is disputed)
- State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (Ohio 2015) (recognizing that fact-based tests can yield different outcomes in similar cases)
- State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio 2010) (discussing deference in inherently subjective, fact-specific determinations)