LAW.coLAW.co

Trachman v. Evans

2026-08-24

Summary

Holding. The appeal was dismissed for lack of a final appealable order because the trial court's May 4, 2026 entry resolved only some but not all of the claims in the action without including the required certification that there is no just reason for delay.

Trachman appealed from a May 2026 trial court order that granted several motions related to his complaint alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, breach of contract, and fraud against Evans and others. The trial court had struck certain exhibits and an amended complaint, dismissed the fraud claim, and denied a motion to seal medical records.

The appellate court determined that the trial court's order was not a final, appealable judgment because it resolved only some claims while others remained pending. Under Ohio law, when multiple claims are presented, an order disposing of fewer than all claims may not be appealed unless the trial court explicitly states there is no just reason for delay. Because the May 4, 2026 entry contained no such certification, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

  • Whether an order resolving multiple claims without all parties being resolved constitutes a final appealable order
  • Requirement for Civil Rule 54(B) certification when entering final judgment on fewer than all claims
  • Appellate jurisdiction over non-final orders

Procedural posture

Trachman appealed from a trial court order granting motions to strike and to dismiss certain claims; the appellees moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final appealable order.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

[Cite as Trachman v. Evans, 2026-Ohio-3302.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

TRUMBULL COUNTY

DANIEL M. TRACHMAN, CASE NO. 2026-T-0047

Plaintiff-Appellant,

Civil Appeal from the

- vs - Court of Common Pleas

RUSSELL D. EVANS, et al.,

Trial Court No. 2025 CV 01796

Defendants-Appellees.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Decided: August 24, 2026

Judgment: Appeal dismissed

Daniel M. Trachman, pro se, 831 Gary Avenue, Girard, OH 44420 (Plaintiff-Appellant).

Craig G. Pelini and Erin E. Kelly, Pelini, Campbell & Ricard, L.L.C., 8040 Cleveland Avenue, N.W., Suite 400, North Canton, OH 44720 (For Defendants-Appellees).

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.

{¶1} Appellant filed a complaint against appellees alleging intentional infliction of

emotional distress, negligence, breach of contract, breach of duties and fraud. In a May

4, 2026 entry, the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas granted appellees’ motion to

strike exhibits attached to appellant’s response to appellees’ motion to dismiss, appellees’

motion to strike appellant’s amended complaint, appellees’ motion to dismiss appellant’s

fraud claim, and appellant’s motion to seal medical records. This appeal ensued.

{¶2} Appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final order. No

response to the motion has been filed.

{¶3} We must determine if there is a final appealable order since this court may

entertain only appeals from final orders. Noble v. Colwell, 44 Ohio St.3d 92, 96 (1989). Under Section 3(B)(2), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution, we can only immediately review

a trial court judgment if it constitutes a “final order.” Patel v. Huntington Banc Shares Fin.

Corp., 2020-Ohio-3937, ¶ 5 (11th Dist.). If an order is not final, then a reviewing court

has no jurisdiction to review it, and the case must be dismissed. Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. v.

Ins. Co. of N. Am., 44 Ohio St.3d 17, 20 (1989). For a judgment to be final and

appealable, it must satisfy the requirements of R.C. 2505.02 and, if applicable, Civ.R.

54(B). Children’s Hosp. Med. Ctr. v. Tomaiko, 2011-Ohio-6838, ¶ 3 (11th Dist.).

{¶4} Civ.R. 54(B) states in pertinent part: “When more than one claim for relief is

presented in an action . . . and . . . 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.”

{¶5} This court has stated that where multiple claims and/or parties are involved,

an order entering final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or

parties is not a final appealable order in the absence of Civ.R. 54(B) language stating that

“there is no just reason for delay. . . .” Walker v. Walker, 2025-Ohio-1597, ¶ 5 (11th Dist.).

{¶6} Here, the entry on appeal disposed of some but not all the claims. Since

there are claims still pending and no Civ.R. 54(B) determination was made in the May 4,

2026 entry, no final order exists at this time.

{¶7} Based upon the foregoing analysis, appellees’ motion to dismiss is hereby

granted, and this appeal is dismissed for lack of a final appealable order.

JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,

SCOTT LYNCH, J.,

concur.

PAGE 2 OF 3

Case No. 2026-T-0047

JUDGMENT ENTRY

For the reasons stated in the memorandum opinion of this court, it is ordered that

appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED. This appeal is hereby DISMISSED

for lack of a final appealable order.

Costs to be taxed against appellant.

JUDGE ROBERT J. PATTON

JUDGE JOHN J. EKLUND,

concurs

JUDGE SCOTT LYNCH,

concurs

THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY

A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate

pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.

PAGE 3 OF 3

Case No. 2026-T-0047