Meffe v. GriffinMeffe v. Griffin
Judgment: Appeal dismissed.
Frank R. Bodor, 157 Porter Street, N.E., Warren, OH 44483 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
David Griffin, pro se, 169 N. Mecca Street, Cortland, OH 44410 and Donald L. Griffin, Sr., pro se, 825 N. River Road, Warren, OH 44483 (Defendants-Appellants).
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, P.J.
{¶1} On April 9, 2012, appellants, David Griffin and Donald L. Griffin, Sr., pro se, filed a notice of appeal from a March 12, 2012 entry of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas. In that entry, the trial court ordered that appellee, Mary J. Meffe, recover the sum of $10,560, plus costs, from appellants.
{¶2} Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on June 5, 2012. Appellee alleges that the request for permanent injunction is still pending in the trial court, and therefore, the order appealed from is not a final appealable order.
{¶4} Appellee filed a reply to appellant David Griffin‘s response in opposition on June 21, 2012.
{¶5} A review of the record reveals that on November 4, 2010, appellee, along with two other plaintiffs, filed a complaint for preliminary and permanent injunction and for money damages for trespass. In a March 12, 2012 entry, the trial court issued a judgment confirming a jury verdict in favor of appellee against David Griffin, Donald L. Griffin, Sr., and Big D‘s of Ohio, Inc. in the sum of $10,560.00, plus costs.
{¶6} On April 9, 2012, when the Notice of Appeal from the March 12, 2012 judgment entry was filed with this court, the claim for permanent injunction remained pending in the trial court, and the entry did not contain
{¶7} In addition, on March 23, 2012, appellants filed a
{¶8} We must determine whether the order appealed from is a final appealable order. According to
{¶9}
{¶10}
When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, and whether arising out of the same or separate transactions, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may enter final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay. In the absence of a determination that there is no just reason for delay, any order or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties, shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties, and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.
{¶11} It is well established that in a matter where multiple claims and/or parties are involved, a judgment entry that enters final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, of the pending claims is not a final appealable order in the absence of
{¶12} In the instant matter, appellee‘s claim for permanent injunction is still pending in the trial court. It also appears as though the claims of the other two plaintiffs have not been addressed. Since the trial court‘s March 12, 2012 order has not entered judgment as to all of the pending claims, no final appealable order exists. Therefore, we are without jurisdiction to entertain an appeal at this time.
{¶13} Based upon the foregoing, this court is without jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. Accordingly, appellee‘s motion to dismiss the appeal is granted. This appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of a final appealable order.
{¶14} Appeal dismissed.
DIANE V. GRENDELL, J.,
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.,
concur.