Grippi v. CantagalloGrippi v. Cantagallo
Civil Appeal from the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2010 CV 1185.
Judgment: Affirmed.
Thomas J. Simon, 1105 Bridge Street, P.O. Box 3048, Ashtabula, OH 44005-3048; and Martin S. Hume, Martin S. Hume Co., L.P.A., 6 Federal Plaza Central, Suite 905, Youngstown, OH 44503-1506 (For Plaintiff-Appellant).
Julie A. Bickis, John T. McLandrich, and Frank H. Scialdone, Mazanec, Raskin, Ryder & Keller Co., L.P.A., 100 Franklin’s Row, 34305 Solon Road, Solon, OH 44139 (For Defendant-Appellee, Anthony Cantagallo).
R. Sean Grayson, Ohio Council 8, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, 6800 North High Street, Worthington, OH 43085-2512 (For Defendant-Appellee, John A. Lyell)
THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J.
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant, Louis J. Grippi, appeals from a judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas which dismissed his complaint against appellees, Anthony Cantagallo (“Cantagallo“), the Ashtabula City Manager; and John Lyell, the President of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
{¶2} Originally, appellant filed an unfair labor practice charge against Cantagallo with the State Employment Relations Board (“SERB“) based on an alleged violation of
{¶3} Thereafter, on November 15, 2010, appellant filed a two-count complaint against appellees. Under Count One, appellant alleged that Cantagallo wrongfully deprived him of his employment with the City of Ashtabula, Ohio. Under Count Two, appellant alleged that the Union misrepresented him when it refused to arbitrate Cantagallo’s purported wrongful discharge of his employment. The Union filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to
{¶4} The trial court entered an order giving appellant a date certain by which to respond. Pursuant to appellant’s subsequent motion for leave, the trial court granted him additional time to respond to appellees’
{¶5} “The trial court erred in dismissing the matter with prejudice.”
{¶6} In his single assignment of error, appellant does not argue that the court erred in dismissing the case. He acknowledges that “no claims were stated” and that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction because the allegations in his complaint fell under the purview of
{¶7} For the purpose of
{¶8} “It is well recognized that a court speaks through its journals * * *. To journalize a decision means that certain formal requirements have been met, i.e., the decision is reduced to writing, signed by a judge, and filed with the clerk so that it may become a part of the permanent record of the court.” San Filipo v. San Filipo, 81 Ohio App.3d 111, 112, (9th Dist.1991), citing State v. Ellington, 36 Ohio App.3d 76, 77-78 (9th Dist. 1987). Accordingly, considering the rubric of formality, permanency, and intentionality associated with a court’s filing of its journal entries, this court presumes that in stating the matter is dismissed “with prejudice,” the trial court here specifically meant to do so and was not acting out of mechanical adherence to standard boilerplate language or rote procedure.
{¶9} One of the bases of appellant’s arguments is that a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter under
{¶10} We turn now to appellant’s argument that a dismissal pursuant to
{¶11} This court reviews the trial court’s judgment dismissing appellant’s complaint pursuant to
{¶12}
{¶13} A dismissal under
{¶14} Appellant cites to the case of Plummer v. Hose, 83 Ohio App.3d 392 (5th Dist.1993), for the contrary proposition that a
{¶15} Based on the foregoing, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing appellant’s complaint with prejudice. Accordingly, appellant’s assignment of error does not have merit and is overruled. It is the judgment and order of this court that the judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Please is affirmed.
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, P.J.,
MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,
concur.