DocketNumber: Appeal No. C-010634, Trial No. A-9805127.
Judges: <bold>Per Curiam</bold>.
Filed Date: 9/13/2002
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
Franciscan and Ohio Heritage filed a counterclaim, arguing that IMCS had breached the terms of the management agreement with Franciscan, that S S had breached the terms of the administrative agreement with Ohio Heritage, that IMCS and S S had breached their obligations undertaken in the memorandum of understanding, and that IMCS and S S had committed fraud, breached their fiduciary duties, and converted assets for their own use.
Before trial, Franciscan and Ohio Heritage filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the tort claims in the first count, and then later filed a second motion for partial summary judgment on the contract claims in the third and fourth counts. Scheur Management and Scheur also filed a motion for summary judgment on the first count. IMCS and S S filed a consolidated memorandum in opposition to the motions for summary judgment.
Upon consideration of the motions for summary judgment and the consolidated memorandum in opposition, the trial court entered summary judgment for Franciscan, Ohio Heritage, Scheur Management, and Scheur and dismissed the following claims with prejudice: (1) all of the tort claims asserted against Franciscan, Ohio Heritage, Scheur Management, and Scheur in count one; (2) the contract claim "accruing after September 6, 1998, and damages regardless of the date of accrual * * *" asserted against Ohio Heritage in count three; and (3) the contract claim asserted against Franciscan in count four. IMSC and S S have appealed from that entry of dismissal.
IMCS and S S assert two assignments of error. In the first assignment of error, IMCS and S S allege that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the tort claims. In the second assignment of error, IMCS and S S allege that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the contract claims. For the following reasons, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.
We may only review final orders or judgments of inferior courts within our jurisdiction. This case involves multiple claims and multiple parties. An order adjudicating one or more but fewer than all of the claims or rights and liabilities of fewer than all of the parties must meet the requirements of R.C.
We first consider whether the order appealed from is "final." Pursuant to R.C.
Even if there was no problem with finality, where, as here, the trial court enters judgment as to fewer than all the claims or all of the parties in a multi-claim, multi-party case, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from that judgment in the absence of the trial court's determination that, pursuant to Civ.R. 54(B), "there is no just reason for delay." Civ.R. 54(B) certification cannot transform a nonfinal order into an appealable order,2 but it can render appealable a final order entered in an action involving multiple claims or parties, when that order adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all of the parties.3 The general purpose of Civ.R. 54(B) is to avoid piecemeal litigation.4
The record reflects that the court included the Civ.R. 54(B) language in its entry. But, having reviewed the counterclaims, we hold that the contract claims asserted against IMCS and S S are inextricably linked to the underlying contract claims brought by IMCS and S S in counts three and four of the complaint. Where claims arise from the same alleged conduct, they are inextricably intertwined and not appealable despite Civ.R. 54(B) certification.5 The counterclaims in this case arise out of the management and administrative contracts, which were the basis of the claims raised by IMCS and S S in counts three and four of their complaint. Accordingly, judicial economy demands that the counterclaims be finally adjudicated before we can assume jurisdiction of this appeal on the contract claims.
As for the tort claims, we further hold that they all arise from the same alleged conduct by Franciscan, Ohio Heritage, Scheur Management, and Scheur: the claims have the same legal predicates involving tortious interference with a contract, tortious interference with a prospective contract, defamation, and conspiracy. And the tort claims have common factual issues: whether agents of Franciscan, Ohio Heritage, Scheur and Scheur Management had informed Catholic Health Care Network and Community Health Partners that IMCS and S S had purportedly engaged in fraudulent services with respect to their involvement with Ohio Heritage, and that they were being investigated by the Ohio Department of Insurance. Thus, while the tort claims are related to a potential or actual loss of business with two separate organizations, the complaint clearly indicates that the facts and legal issues set forth in the first and second counts are inextricably intertwined, and judicial economy demands that the tort claims in count two be decided before we can assume jurisdiction over the appeal.
Because Civ.R. 54(B) was not properly used in this case, and the trial court's judgment otherwise lacks finality, this appeal is sua sponte dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Gorman, P.J., Sundermann and Winkler, JJ.