Ranallo v. First Energy Corp.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Ranallo v. First Energy Corp., 2005-Ohio-4205.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO ROBERT RANALLO, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, : MEMORANDUM OPINION : CASE NO. 2005-L-069 - vs - : FIRST ENERGY CORPORATION, Defendant, CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, : : : : Defendant-Appellee. Civil Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 01 CV 001583. Judgment: Appeal Dismissed. Robert A. Simpson and John W. Wiles, Centre Plaza South, 35350 Curtis Boulevard, #530, Eastlake, OH 44095 (For Plaintiffs-Appellants). Kathryn M. Miley, 1422 Euclid Avenue, #248, Cleveland, OH 44115 (For DefendantAppellee). DIANE V. GRENDELL, J., {¶1} This matter is before this court on the May 20, 2005 motion of appellee, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, to dismiss this appeal for lack of a final appealable order. Appellants have not filed a response. {¶2} Appellee points out that it filed counterclaims in the trial court which have yet to be addressed. Additionally, the trial court, in the judgment being appealed, did not comply with Civ.R. 54(B) language that there is no just reason for delay. Accordingly, appellee submits that the trial court has not yet issued a final appealable order. {¶3} This court agrees with appellee s analysis. Without an express determination that there is no just reason for delay, a trial court s judgment is not a final appealable order when there are multiple parties or claims involved and fewer than all the claims or parties are addressed. Civ.R. 54(B); Girard v. Leatherworks Partnership, 11th Dist. No. 2001-T-0138, 2002-Ohio-7276, at ¶17, citing State ex rel. A & D Ltd. Partnership v. Keefe, 77 Ohio St.3d 50, 56, 1996-Ohio-95. {¶4} Accordingly, because the counterclaims of appellee still remain, and there was no express determination that there is no just reason for delay, the trial court s April 22, 2005 judgment is not a final appealable order. Hence, this court does not have jurisdiction to consider this appeal. {¶5} Appellee s motion to dismiss is hereby granted. {¶6} Appeal dismissed. WILLIAM M. O NEILL, J., CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J., concur. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
