Leonard v. Huntington Bancshares, Inc., 2014 Ohio 2421

Leonard filed a 2012 complaint alleging Huntington misappropriated funds from three Huntington accounts.
The trial court granted summary judgment on two accounts as time-barred (May 23, 2013) without Civ.R. 54(B) finality.
A second summary-judgment ruling (August 13, 2013) disposed of the remaining account's claims except for breach of contract and constructive trust, which were not time-barred.
Leonard dismissed the remaining two claims without prejudice under Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a) on September 4, 2013 to seek an immediate appeal from the prior summary judgments.
The appellate court determined there was no final, appealable order due to Pattison v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., and thus lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
The court dismissed the appeal for lack of a final, appealable order under RC 2505.02 and Civ.R. 54(B).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly applied RC Chapter 1109.69.	Leonard argues misapplication by the court.	Huntington contends proper application and that no final appealable order exists.	No final, appealable order; Pattison controls.
Whether Leonard could create a final order via Civ.R. 41(A) dismissal of remaining claims.	Leonard relied on Civ.R. 41(A) to obtain immediate appeal.	Huntington argues such partial dismissal cannot create finality.	Pattison prohibits creating a final order by partial Civ.R. 41(A) dismissal; appeal dismissed.

Pattison v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 120 Ohio St.3d 142 (2008) (partial Civ.R. 41(A) dismissals cannot create final appealable orders; efficiency and prejudice concerns)
Chef Italiano Corp. v. Kent State Univ., 44 Ohio St.3d 86 (1989) (finality under Civ.R. 54(B) required for multiple claims)
Prod. Credit Assn. v. Hedges, 87 Ohio App.3d 207 (1993) (jurisdictional review of final orders; sua sponte determination of finality)
State ex rel. Scruggs v. Sadler, 2002-Ohio-5315 (Ohio Supreme Court (2002)) (finality and relief standards for appellate review)