The Eleventh Appellate District Court of Ohio has dismissed an appeal filed by WCG Properties, L.L.C. (WCG) against Gina Clifton, Brian Sawyer, and R.D. Roth Foods, Inc. (R.D. Roth). The court determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the original trial court’s dismissal of WCG’s civil complaint was not a “final appealable order.” This means the case isn’t over yet, and WCG potentially has the option to refile its complaint.
The Original Lawsuit
The Basics of the Case
The initial case, filed in the Chardon Municipal Court on September 30, 2024, involved a property located at 15015 Kinsman Road, Middlefield, Ohio, owned by WCG. The complaint alleged a breach of a lease agreement that R.D. Roth, as the tenant, and Clifton and Sawyer, as guarantors, had entered into on June 1, 2019. The lawsuit claimed the defendants failed to pay rent, utilities, and other charges, and that they damaged the property. WCG sought $15,000 in damages, along with interest, attorney fees, and costs.
Service of the Complaint
The Chardon Municipal Court clerk issued a summons and complaint to the defendants by Federal Express on October 2, 2024. Service was successfully completed on R.D. Roth on October 4, 2024. However, the initial service on Clifton and Sawyer failed. WCG requested and received reissuance of service via ordinary U.S. mail on December 18, 2024.
The Trial Court’s Actions
Warning of Dismissal
On March 14, 2025, the trial court sent a letter to WCG’s counsel, informing them that Clifton and Sawyer had been served and that failure to seek a default judgment within 28 days could lead to the case being dismissed.
Dismissal Without Prejudice
The trial court dismissed WCG’s case “without prejudice, for want of prosecution” on May 16, 2025, citing Civil Rule 41(B)(1). This rule allows a court to dismiss a case if a party fails to prosecute it. The phrase “without prejudice” means the dismissal doesn’t prevent WCG from filing the lawsuit again.
Post-Dismissal Actions
Motion to Vacate Dismissal Denied
WCG filed a Motion to Vacate Dismissal on June 9, 2025, arguing that it didn’t receive the trial court’s March 14, 2025, warning. The trial court denied this motion on the same day.
Appeal Filed
WCG then appealed the trial court’s dismissal on June 16, 2025, claiming the court erred in dismissing the case because service had been completed.
Appellate Court’s Decision
Lack of Jurisdiction
The Eleventh Appellate District Court’s key finding was that it didn’t have the authority to hear the appeal. Under Ohio law, an appellate court can only review “final orders” from a lower court. Because the trial court’s dismissal was “without prejudice,” the appellate court determined it wasn’t a final order.
Explanation of “Without Prejudice”
The court explained that a dismissal “without prejudice” essentially leaves the parties in the same position they were in before the lawsuit was filed. WCG could potentially refile its complaint.
Arguments and Analysis
WCG’s Arguments
WCG argued that the trial court should not have dismissed the case. However, the appellate court didn’t address the merits of this argument because it lacked jurisdiction.
The “Double Dismissal” Rule
The court addressed whether WCG was prevented from refiling its complaint. It noted that the “double dismissal” rule, which would prevent refiling, only applies when a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses a case twice. Since the dismissal here was by court order, this rule didn’t apply.
The Saving Statute
The court also considered Ohio’s “saving statute,” which allows a plaintiff to refile a case within a year if the original action failed for reasons other than on its merits. The court found no indication that WCG had invoked the saving statute in this case. Even if it had, the court stated that WCG wasn’t limited to a single refiling.
Conclusion
The Eleventh Appellate District Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the trial court’s dismissal “without prejudice” was not a final order. WCG can potentially refile its complaint in the trial court.