Ohio Atty. Gen. v. Lager

Summary

The Tenth District Court of Appeals of Ohio dismissed the Lager defendants’ appeal for lack of a final, appealable order. The court held that the trial court’s asset-freeze preliminary injunction did not satisfy the meaningful-or-effective-remedy requirement of Ohio Revised Code 2505.02(B)(4)(b), and that the inclusion of Civ.R. 54(B) language could not make the order final. The court also rejected the defendants’ argument that the order was final under R.C. 2505.02(B)(2).

Holdings

1. Although the asset-freeze order was a provisional remedy and satisfied R.C. 2505.02(B)(4)(a), it did not satisfy R.C. 2505.02(B)(4)(b) because the defendants failed to show that they would be deprived of a meaningful or effective remedy by waiting to appeal until after final judgment.
2. The preliminary injunction was not a final order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(2) because the underlying action was not a special proceeding and the defendants did not establish that the order affected a substantial right in a manner requiring immediate review.
3. The trial court's inclusion of Civ.R. 54(B) language did not make the preliminary-injunction order final and appealable.
4. The interlocutory summary-judgment decision did not merge into a final appealable order because the preliminary injunction itself was not final.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court's asset-freeze preliminary injunction was a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4).
2. Whether the preliminary injunction affected a substantial right in a special proceeding under R.C. 2505.02(B)(2).
3. Whether Civ.R. 54(B) language could make the preliminary-injunction order final and appealable.
4. Whether the interlocutory summary-judgment decision merged into a final order permitting appellate review.

Disposition

dismissed