Background
Edward Hochevar filed suit against multiple defendants, including Polaris Career Center, its Board of Education, Cuyahoga Community College, the Olmsted Falls City School District Board of Education, and several individual defendants. After an amended complaint added and removed certain parties, four separate summary-judgment motions were filed in June 2025 by various groupings of defendants. On August 13, 2025, the trial court granted all four motions. Hochevar appealed, raising six assignments of error.
Critically, the trial court’s order granting summary judgment did not dispose of all named defendants. Two defendants from the first amended complaint — Polaris Career Center Board of Education and Polaris Joint Vocational School District Board of Education — were not addressed by the summary-judgment order issued in favor of Polaris Career Center, Polaris Joint Vocational School District, and Susan Vigh. The order also lacked the Civ.R. 54(B) certification that “there is no just reason for delay.”
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth District dismissed the appeal for lack of a final appealable order. The court observed that under Civ.R. 54(B), when multiple claims or parties are involved, a trial court’s order that adjudicates fewer than all claims or the rights of fewer than all parties does not become final and appealable unless the court expressly determines “there is no just reason for delay.” Because the trial court’s August 2025 entry did not dispose of Polaris Career Center Board of Education or Polaris Joint Vocational School District Board of Education, and lacked the required Civ.R. 54(B) certification, it was not a final appealable order.
The court further noted that even a limited remand for the trial court to add the Civ.R. 54(B) language would not cure the problem. Citing the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in Noble v. Colwell, the court emphasized that “the mere incantation of the required language does not turn an otherwise non-final order into a final appealable order.” The order must fit into at least one of the three categories of final orders set forth in R.C. 2505.02.
Key Takeaways
- An order granting summary judgment that does not dispose of all parties in a multi-defendant case is not a final appealable order without Civ.R. 54(B) certification.
- A remand to add Civ.R. 54(B) language is futile if the underlying order does not meet the statutory definition of a final order under R.C. 2505.02.
- Plaintiffs in multi-defendant cases must ensure all parties are resolved or obtain proper Civ.R. 54(B) certification before appealing.
Why It Matters
This decision is a cautionary reminder for Ohio litigators handling multi-party cases. Practitioners must verify that a trial court’s order disposes of all claims and all parties before filing an appeal, or ensure the trial court has included the Civ.R. 54(B) no-just-reason-for-delay language. Failing to do so results in dismissal and delays in the appellate process. The opinion also confirms that the Eighth District will not simply remand to have the magic words added if the order itself does not resolve the rights of all parties.