Background
Goffredo J. Di Fiore sought public records from the City of Lyndhurst concerning a stop-work order involving the Georgetown of Lyndhurst property. The city produced a stop-work order and additional documents responsive to later requests, then stated it had no further responsive records.
After hand-delivering a prefiling complaint to the city, Di Fiore filed a public-records complaint in the Ohio Court of Claims. The city moved to dismiss, arguing that Di Fiore had not complied with the statutory prefiling-service requirement. A special master recommended dismissal, and the Court of Claims dismissed the complaint without prejudice. Di Fiore appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth District dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. A dismissal without prejudice ordinarily is not a final appealable order because it does not decide the claims on their merits and permits the plaintiff to refile.
That rule applied here because the Court of Claims dismissed only for a procedural failure to serve the prefiling complaint as required by R.C. 149.43(C)(1). Nothing but alleged inconvenience prevented Di Fiore from serving the complaint in compliance with the statute and refiling his action. The Court of Claims’ award of costs did not make the otherwise nonfinal dismissal appealable.
Key Takeaways
- A public-records complaint dismissed without prejudice for a procedural defect generally is not immediately appealable.
- Because Di Fiore could cure the asserted service defect and refile, the dismissal did not constitute a final order.
- An award of costs does not, by itself, convert a nonfinal dismissal without prejudice into a final appealable order.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that Ohio appellate courts must determine final-order jurisdiction before reaching the merits. A party whose Court of Claims public-records action is dismissed without prejudice for defective prefiling service ordinarily must cure the defect and refile rather than seek immediate appellate review.