Ritchie v. Mahoning Cty., 2017 Ohio 1213

Plaintiffs Robin and Rocky Ritchie sued Mahoning County and dog pound employees for negligence after Robin was attacked by a pit bull at the county dog pound while attempting to adopt a dog.
The County moved to dismiss under the political-subdivision immunity scheme in R.C. Chapter 2744; the trial court denied that motion in a one-sentence, final appealable entry. The County did not appeal that order.
Over seven months later the County filed a document titled "motion for summary judgment" again asserting sovereign immunity based solely on the complaint and a recently decided Fifth District case.
The trial court struck the later summary-judgment motion as simply reasserting the same legal arguments rejected in the final order and characterized it as a motion for reconsideration (a nullity under Ohio law).
The County appealed the trial court's order striking the summary-judgment motion; the Seventh District dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the appeal was taken from a judgment on a motion for reconsideration, which is a nullity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to consider the County's later motion after it failed to timely appeal the denial of its motion to dismiss	Ritchie argued the denial of the original motion to dismiss was final and precluded re-litigation of the same immunity argument	County argued it could press sovereign-immunity defenses later via a summary-judgment motion and appeal the order denying that motion	The court held the later filing merely reasserted the identical arguments rejected in a final order and was a motion for reconsideration (a nullity); appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether a political subdivision waives sovereign-immunity defenses if it does not take an interlocutory appeal under R.C. 2744.02(C)	Ritchie relied on the finality rule: denial of immunity is appealable and, if not appealed, bars reassertion of the same arguments without new evidence	County contended that filing a summary-judgment motion preserved or reasserted its immunity defense and entitled it to appellate review	Held that failure to timely appeal the final order denying immunity forecloses relitigation of the same legal issues absent new facts or theories; procedural posture made the later motion a nullity

Hubbell v. City of Xenia, 115 Ohio St.3d 77 (2007) (denial of immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744 is a final, appealable order)
Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 44 Ohio St.3d 17 (1989) (appellate jurisdiction limited to final orders)
Pitts v. Ohio Dep’t of Transp., 67 Ohio St.2d 378 (1981) (motions for reconsideration after final judgment are a nullity)
State ex rel. Pendell v. Adams Cty. Bd. of Elections, 40 Ohio St.3d 58 (1988) (time limit for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional)