Mahoney v. HB Emp. Servs., L.L.C., 2011 Ohio 5186

Mahoney was employed at Woodside Village, owned by Horizon Bay.
Kerri Bemus became supervisor in Oct. 2005 and allegedly treated Mahoney less favorably due to age.
Mahoney was terminated May 16, 2008.
She filed suit Feb. 5, 2010 alleging age discrimination, aiding and abetting age discrimination, negligent retention/training/supervision, and unlawful wiretapping.
The trial court granted summary judgment on untimeliness and other claims; CallSource Inc. remained as a defendant for one claim which was later dismissed March 2, 2011.
Mahoney appeals arguing the negligent retention claim was timely and that the order became final, but the court finds no final appealable order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the dismissal a final appealable order?	Mahoney contends the last remaining claim against CallSource made the order final.	The dismissal of a partial claim against a defendant does not create a final appealable order.	No final appealable order.
Does Civ.R. 41(A)(1) allow partial dismissal of claims against a defendant to create finality?	Civ.R. 41(A)(1) permits dismissal of all claims against a defendant, creating finality.	Civ.R. 41(A)(1) cannot be used to dismiss only some claims against a defendant.	Civ.R. 41(A)(1) cannot create finality for partial dismissals against a single defendant.
Does Pattison require dismissal to be final where some claims against a defendant remain, affecting finality?	Principles in Pattison support finality after partial dismissal.	Pattison supports avoiding piecemeal appeals by not creating finality via partial dismissal.	Pattison prohibits treating partial Civ.R. 41(A)(1) dismissals as final.

Pattison v. W.W. Grainger, 120 Ohio St.3d 142 (2008-Ohio-5276) (partial dismissals cannot render a final order when other claims remain against the same defendant)
Denham v. City of New Carlisle, 86 Ohio St.3d 594 (1999-Ohio-?) (Civ.R. 41(A) dismissal applies to all claims against a party, not partial claims)