Case Number: 27697

Judge: Jeffrey M. Welbaum

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY

Plaintiff's Attorney: WAYNE WAITE

Defendant's Attorney: Richard A. Talda
Jennifer R. Grewe

Description: On June 8, 2016, Poirier filed a complaint against PECo for monetary
damages and equitable relief, based on PECo’s alleged breach of Poirier’s
manufacturer’s representative agreement. The complaint alleged four causes of action
against PECo: breach of contract; conversion of fees paid by Poirier’s clients; violation of
the statutory duty in R.C. 1335.11 when PECo failed to pay Poirier’s commissions from
2013 to 2016; and unjust enrichment. As a remedy, Poirier asked to be paid


-3-
commissions in excess of $25,000, punitive damages, attorney fees, and any other relief
the court deemed appropriate.
{¶ 4} The facts in the case were undisputed. According to the complaint, PECo
and Poirier entered into a manufacturer’s representative agreement in mid-August 2013.
Under the agreement, which was attached to the complaint as Exhibit 1, PECo appointed
Poirier to act as a non-exclusive or sales-specific sales representative for customers and
prospective customers described in Ex. A (the Territory). The specified territory was
Fanuc Robotics in Detroit, Michigan, and Spacex, in Los Angeles, California.
{¶ 5} Poirier was to be paid commission on all products sold within the Territory
and was to be paid compensation based entirely on commission. Under the agreement,
Poirier was to be paid commission on actual amounts that were collected within 30 days
after PECo rendered an invoice to a customer and received payment. The commission
schedule provided for a certain percentage of commission for each production purchase
order, and further provided for spilt commissions. Concerning split commissions, the
agreement stated that “[i]n the event that two or more representatives work in
collaboration with PECo, commission will be spilt in accordance with the effort of the
Representatives. PECo will make the determination of the level of activity shown by the
representative.” Complaint, Ex. C attached to Ex. 1, p. 2.
{¶ 6} The agreement also contained a termination clause, which provided that:
X. Termination. The Agreement shall take effect as of the day and
year written above and shall continue in force until terminated as hereinafter
provided. After the effective date of this Agreement, either party may
terminate this Agreement with or without cause upon 30 days written notice


-4-
(hereafter referred to as the “Notice Period”), sent by certified mail, return
receipt requested, to the other party. During said 30 day Notice Period,
this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect in all respects and may
not be shortened without the express written consent of both parties. In
the event of termination, the Company shall also pay to the Representative
"Post Termination Commissions" on orders received after the date of such
written notice from quotations submitted to accounts located in the
Representative's territory prior to termination. The Company will honor
such orders for a period of 6 months after the date of written notice of
termination. During such Post Termination Period, the Representative
shall not directly or indirectly pursue or have contacts with any other firms
that compete with the Company.
Complaint, Ex. 1, p. 3.
{¶ 7} Also attached to the complaint was a letter dated September 28, 2015, from
PECo to Poirier. The letter indicated that PECo was terminating Poirier’s representative
agreement, which had previously been verbally terminated by Poirier and Richard Schafer
in February 2015. The letter further indicated that PECo had not received any
communication from Poirier relaying Poirier’s representative activities with Fanuc on
PECo’s behalf in the past year. In addition, the letter stated that when PECo’s CEO,
Susan Springhetti, had questioned Poirier about his activity for 2014/2015, Poirier’s
expressed activity (one visit to Fanuc in one year) was inadequate. In the complaint,
Poirier contended that after his termination, PECo had refused to pay him commissions
that were due.


-5-
{¶ 8} On July 15, 2016, PECo filed its answer to the complaint, and it admitted that
the documents attached to the complaint were true and accurate copies of the documents
that were involved. PECo asserted various defenses, including that the complaint failed
to state a claim, that the claims were barred due to Poirier’s lack of performance and
breach of agreement, by a lack of consideration, by lawful termination of the contract, by
equitable doctrines of laches, estoppel, wavier, and unclean hands, and so forth. PECo,
therefore, asked that the complaint be dismissed at Poirier’s cost, and that it be awarded
the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney fees.
{¶ 9} In late December 2016, the trial court filed a final pretrial order, setting a final
pretrial conference for April 13, 2017, and a bench trial for April 25, 2017. Shortly
thereafter, on January 9, 2017, PECo filed a motion for summary judgment. The
essence of the motion was that Poirier had breached the contract by doing nothing, and
that he was not entitled to any commissions.
{¶ 10} The motion was supported by the affidavit of Springhetti, who indicated that
she had met with Poirier in the fall of 2014 to discuss what activities Poirier had conducted
on behalf of and to represent PECo. At that time, Poirier stated that the extent of his
efforts was only one trip to Fanuc in 2014 with Richard Schaefer, PECo’s sales
representative. Springhetti then asked that Poirier send her notification of his trips,
contacts made, communications, discussion topics, and the purpose of visits to, and
contact with, PECo customers. However, after the fall 2014 meeting, Springhetti did not
receive any information that she had requested, including evidence that Poirier was
performing work for PECo. The only “sales” activities that Poirier had engaged in since
entering the agreement in 2013 were two visits to Fanuc. During those visits, Poirier was


-6-
accompanied by Richard Schaefer, who led the meetings and did a majority of the
communicating with the client. Springhetti stated that Poirier’s “presence and
participations at these meetings was minimal at best.” PECo Motion for Summary
Judgment, Ex. 1 (Affidavit of Susan Springhetti), p. 3. Springhetti further indicated that
PECo had been damaged by Poirier’s failure to perform and by paying him commissions,
and that Poirier had not conferred any benefit on PECo.
{¶ 11} In addition, Springhetti stated that Poirier was notified in February 2015 that
his agreement was being terminated due to his failure to perform. PECo sent a follow
up letter on September 28, 2015, confirming the February 2015 oral termination.
According to Springhetti, PECo determined that Poirier had not shown the level of activity
that the Agreement required for payment of commissions, as Poirier had not done any
work or service to earn them. Springhetti further indicated that while PECo did not
believe Poirier was entitled to any commissions due to his failure to comply with a material
term of the agreement, i.e., perform work and services, PECo paid commissions to Poirier
up through December 2014.
{¶ 12} Springhetti also included documents that Poirier had produced in response
to PECo’s request for production of documents. Specifically, PECo asked for any
documents that would support Poirier’s claim that he had conducted business activities
on PECo’s behalf, and that demonstrated his claim for damages. Poirier produced only
nine pages of documents, which included: (1) what appears to be copies of seven
payments totaling more than $30,000 that he had received from PECo between March
19, 2015, and June 24, 2015 (most of which were labeled “4th QTR Comm.”); (2) a few
emails between Poirier and a PECo employee, during one of which he mentioned that a


-7-
meeting with Spacex had gone well; and (3) minimal correspondence between Poirier
and Springhetti in September 2015 regarding his termination.
{¶ 13} In responding to the summary judgment motion, Poirier did not file an
affidavit or any materials other than what had been filed with his complaint. Poirier
contended that the contract was not terminated until September 28, 2015, and that he
was due commissions for six months after termination. However, he did not produce
proof of any orders that he produced at any time during the agreement.
{¶ 14} On March 8, 2017, the trial court granted summary judgment in PECo’s
favor on all counts in the complaint. The court concluded that PECo had presented
evidence that Poirier failed to perform under the contract and that Poirier did not refute
this fact. The court further concluded that no conversion had occurred because Poirier
failed to identify any commissions that had not been paid; in view of this fact, the issue of
when Poirier was terminated was also irrelevant. As to the claim under R.C. 1335.11,
the court found a lack of evidence that Poirier was due any commissions past December
2014. And finally, the court rejected Poirier’s claim of unjust enrichment because Poirier
had not conferred any benefit on PECo.
{¶ 15} In its decision, the court also set a non-oral hearing for March 21, 2017, at
which time PECo was to submit evidence of reasonable attorney fees and costs due.
Poirier was then given seven days thereafter to respond to any submission. The court
noted that the decision was a final appealable order but the court did not include a Civ.R.
54(B) certification. In addition, the court noted that the decision had been electronically
transmitted to the parties.
{¶ 16} On March 16, 2017, Poirier filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to


-8-
Civ.R. 41(A), and dismissed his claims against PECo, without prejudice. Subsequently,
on March 21, 2017, PECo submitted its request for attorney fees and costs totaling
$14,662.28. The same day, PECo filed a motion to strike Poirier’s voluntary dismissal.
The court then granted the motion to strike on March 27, 2017, and gave Poirier until
March 31, 2017 to respond to PECo’s attorney fee submission.
{¶ 17} On March 31, 2017, Poirier filed a response to the fee request, and also
filed a motion asking the trial court to reconsider the ruling on the motion to strike. Poirier
then filed a notice of appeal from the March 8, 2017 entry granting summary judgment.
On April 19, 2017, the trial court filed an order holding the motion for reconsideration and
the attorney fee issue in abeyance pending appeal.
{¶ 18} On August 3, 2017, we dismissed Poirier’s appeal for lack of a final
appealable order, and remanded the case to the trial court. Our decision was based on
the fact that the trial court had contemplated further action on attorney fees and did not
include a Civ.R. 54(B) certification. See Poirier v. Process Equipment Co. of Tipp City,
2d Dist. Montgomery No. 27529, 2017-Ohio-8188, ¶ 6 (Poirier I). After remand, the trial
court filed an order on August 16, 2017, amending its decision of March 8, 2017, to add
a Civ.R. 54(B) certification. The same day, Poirier filed another Civ.R. 41(A) dismissal
of his claims against PECo. In addition, Poirier also filed a notice of appeal from the trial
court’s August 16, 2017 order and entry and from the court’s March 27, 2017 decision,
order, and entry sustaining PECo’s motion to strike the notice of voluntary dismissal.
{¶ 19} During the course of the appeal, Poirier filed a “Notice for Determination of
Final Appealable Order” in our court, asking that we issue a decision concerning whether
the trial court’s August 16, 2017 amended order and entry was a final appealable order


-9-
in light of the voluntary notice of dismissal that had been filed on March 16, 2017. We
indicated that we would resolve this issue when we considered the merits of the appeal.
See Poirier v. Process Equipment Co. of Tipp City, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 27697 (Dec.
21, 2017) (Poirier II).

II. Propriety of Order Striking Notice of Dismissal
{¶ 20} Poirier has not presented a statement of any assignments of error as
required by App.R. 16(A)(3), but has simply made three points under the part of his brief
that is labeled “Law and Analysis.” While we are allowed to strike the brief or dismiss an
appeal in such situations, we generally will decide to review the appellant’s claims, in the
interests of justice. See, e.g., VanHeulen v. VanHeulen, 2d Dist. Greene No. 2015-CA
29, 2015-Ohio-4792, ¶ 11. Accordingly, we will do so here. From what we can glean
from the discussion, Poirier’s primary contention can be phrased as follows:
Because the Trial Court’s Original Summary Judgment Order Was
Not a Final Appealable Order, Poirier Had Authority to File a Notice of
Voluntary Dismissal, and the Trial Court Erred in Striking the Notice of
Dismissal.
{¶ 21} In essence, Poirier’s argument is that because the trial court failed to include
a Civ.R. 54(B) certification with the summary judgment ruling of March 8, 2017, the order
was interlocutory and Poirier was entitled to file a voluntary notice of dismissal. Poirier
further contends that the attorney fee award was not a collateral issue because it was
based on the merits of the case, and that the trial court would be without jurisdiction to
consider the amount of the award after the notice of dismissal was filed.


-10
{¶ 22} As a preliminary point, we note that the fee award is not before us, as the
trial court has not yet ruled on the fee request. That matter was held in abeyance
pending the first appeal, and there is no indication in the docket that the trial court has
rendered a decision on the point. Instead, the current appeal, as noted in Poirier’s notice
of appeal, is from the August 16, 2017 order amending the March 8, 2017 summary
judgment decision to add a Civ.R. 54(B) certification, and from the March 27, 2017 order
striking the notice of voluntary dismissal.
{¶ 23} The trial court’s decision to strike the notice of voluntary dismissal cited
State ex rel. Engelhart v. Russo, 131 Ohio St.3d 137, 2012-Ohio-47, 961 N.E.2d 1118,
in which the Supreme Court of Ohio observed that “a notice of voluntary dismissal filed
after the trial court enters summary judgment is of no force and effect and is a nullity.”
Id. at ¶ 17, citing Blair v. Boye–Doe, 157 Ohio App.3d 17, 2004-Ohio-1876, 808 N.E.2d
906, ¶ 3, fn. 2 (9th Dist.), and Sutton v. Kim, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2004-T-0061, 2005
Ohio-5866, ¶ 16.
{¶ 24} Poirier’s brief does not discuss the Engelhart case. Instead, Poirier
focuses on the argument that he has an absolute right to voluntarily terminate his action
prior to actual commencement of trial, and that the lack of Civ.R. 54(B) language rendered
the judgment interlocutory and subject to dismissal.
{¶ 25} The March 8, 2017 judgment was not a final appealable order because
when the original pleadings ask for attorney fees, decisions that award attorney fees, but
do not specify amounts, are not final appealable orders. Poirier I, 2d Dist. Montgomery
No. 27529, 2017-Ohio-8188, at ¶ 4-6, citing Internatl. Bhd. of Electrical Workers, Local
Union No. 8 v. Vaughn Industries, L.L.C., 116 Ohio St.3d 335, 2007-Ohio-6439, 879


-11
N.E.2d 187, at paragraph two of the syllabus. (Other citations omitted.)
{¶ 26} In the case before us, PECo inserted a request for attorney fees in its
answer, and could have asked for attorney fees as part of its motion for summary
judgment. PECo also could have moved for fees after the court entered summary
judgment on its behalf. Vaughn at ¶ 2. PECo did not ask for fees in its summary
judgment motion. Instead, the trial court determined that PECo was the prevailing party
under R.C. 1335.11, and ordered a further non-oral hearing on fees. At that point, under
Vaughn, the trial court was required to insert a Civ.R. 54(B) certification in the summary
judgment decision before the decision could be considered a final appealable order. Id.
{¶ 27} In Vaughn, the Supreme Court of Ohio stressed that “[i]n the absence of
express Civ.R. 54(B) language, an appellate court may not review an order disposing of
fewer than all claims. * * * The trial court may revise the order until all claims are
adjudicated. Civ.R. 54(B). A court may not bypass the requirement to include the
express language of Civ.R. 54(B) simply by designating the order as final.” Vaughn at
¶ 8.
{¶ 28} After Vaughn was decided, we noted the concern of other courts that an
overly broad application would require dismissal of subsequent appeals for lack of a final
appealable order even where requests for attorney fees had been only pro forma.
(Citations omitted.) Evanston Acquisitions, LLC v. STAG II Dayton, LLC, 2d Dist.
Montgomery No. 27480, 2017-Ohio-5755, ¶ 8. We commented that this reasoning would
not apply in several situations, where an appeal would properly be dismissed for lack of
a final appealable order under Vaughn. These included situations where the trial court
discussed fees in its order or awarded fees and deferred determination of the amount of


-12
the fees until later. The fear of overly broad application would also not be a concern
where fees were requested under an express statute rather than being vague or
unspecified requests. (Citations omitted.) Id. at ¶ 9.
{¶ 29} In the case before us, the trial court awarded fees, subject to further
determination of the amount. This fell within the situations we discussed in Evanston,
and the trial court’s order, therefore, was clearly not a final appealable order under
Vaughn. Consequently, when Poirier filed his Civ.R. 41(A) notice of dismissal, the trial
court’s order was still interlocutory.
{¶ 30} In pertinent part, Civ.R. 41(A)(1) allows a plaintiff “without order of court” to
dismiss all claims against a defendant by “(a) filing a notice of dismissal at any time before
commencement of trial unless a counterclaim which cannot remain pending for
independent adjudication by the court has been served by that defendant * * *.” Since
the court’s decision was interlocutory, Poirier had the right under Civ.R. 41(A) to file a
notice of dismissal.
{¶ 31} The Supreme Court of Ohio did say in Engelhart that “a notice of voluntary
dismissal filed after the trial court enters summary judgment is of no force and effect and
is a nullity.” Engelhart, 131 Ohio St.3d 137, 2012-Ohio-47, 961 N.E.2d 1118, at ¶ 17,
citing Blair, 157 Ohio App.3d 17, 2004-Ohio-1876, 808 N.E.2d 906, at ¶ 3, fn. 2, and
Sutton, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2004–T–0061, 2005-Ohio-5866, at ¶ 16. However, this
statement must be understood in its context.
{¶ 32} Engelhart involved a mandamus action in which the trial court had signed
an entry granting summary judgment to the respondents. Id. at ¶ 2-3. However, before
the clerk had a chance to file the trial court’s order, petitioner’s counsel became aware of


-13
the court’s intended action and filed a notice of dismissal. Id. at ¶ 3. As a result, even
though the trial court had signed the entry granting summary judgment earlier, the
petitioner’s notice of dismissal was filed first. Id.
{¶ 33} Subsequently, the respondents moved the trial court to strike the notice of
dismissal, and also moved the trial court to have the petitioner and her counsel show
cause why they should not be held in contempt. Id. at ¶ 6. In response, the trial court
filed an order striking the notice of dismissal and also imposed sanctions against the
attorney. Id. at ¶ 6-9. After this occurred, the petitioner filed a complaint for a writ of
prohibition in the court of appeals, seeking to prevent the trial court from further
proceeding. The petitioner also sought a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to
vacate the order striking the notice of dismissal and to reinstate the notice. Id. at ¶ 10.
After the court of appeals denied the writs, the petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court
of Ohio.
{¶ 34} In responding to the petitioner’s claims, the Supreme Court of Ohio first
noted that “ ‘[t]he plain import of Civ.R. 41(A)(1) is that once a plaintiff voluntarily
dismisses all claims against a defendant, the court is divested of jurisdiction over those
claims.’ ” Id. at ¶ 16, quoting State ex rel. Fifth Third Mtge. Co. v. Russo, 129 Ohio St.3d
250, 2011-Ohio-3177, 951 N.E.2d 414, ¶ 17. The court then noted the decision of the
court of appeals, which had held that the notice of dismissal was ineffective because the
petitioner had filed it after the trial court granted summary judgment. This is the context
in which the Supreme Court of Ohio made the observation that the trial court and PECo
have relied on – i.e., that a voluntary dismissal after summary judgment is a nullity. Id.
at ¶ 17.


-14
{¶ 35} The court went on to note that a notice of dismissal is effective if it is filed
before journalization of a summary judgment. (Citations omitted.) Id. at ¶ 18. Due to
the facts in the case, the court ultimately concluded that the notice of dismissal was
effective because it was filed before the court’s order was journalized. The court
stressed that journalization is required for an order to be effective under Civ.R. 58. Id.
at ¶ 21-25. Thus, the petitioner won the “race” in this case because her notice of
dismissal was filed before the clerk filed the trial court’s summary judgment decision.
{¶ 36} Because a “notice of voluntary dismissal is self-executing and completely
terminates the possibility of further action on the merits of the case upon its mere filing,
without the necessity of court intervention,” the Supreme Court of Ohio held that the court
of appeals had erred in denying the request for a writ of prohibition to prevent the trial
court from proceeding on the merits of the case and in denying the writ of mandamus to
compel the trial court to vacate its entry striking the notice of dismissal. Id. at ¶ 23 and
26.
{¶ 37} Notably, Engelhart and the cases it cited for the proposition about voluntary
dismissals did not involve circumstances where a motion is granted but is not a final
appealable order, either because a trial court fails to include a Civ.R. 54(B) certification
or an attorney fee award is pending, or both. As was noted, the comment in Engelhart
must be considered in its context. It cannot be construed as broadly as either the trial
court or PECo believes.
{¶ 38} For example, in Blair, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her case after the
trial court had already dismissed it due to the plaintiff’s failure to provide an expert report.
No attorney fees or other pending matters were involved, and the appeal actually involved


-15
a subsequent denial of the plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment. Blair, 157 Ohio
App.3d 17, 2004-Ohio-1876, 808 N.E.2d 906, at ¶ 3.
{¶ 39} Furthermore, the footnote in Blair that was cited by the Supreme Court of
Ohio in Engelhart referred to a prior decision of the Ninth District Court of Appeals. See
Engelhart, 131 Ohio St.3d 137, 2012-Ohio-47, 961 N.E.2d 1118, at ¶ 17, citing Blair at
¶ 3, fn. 2. This footnote in Blair, in turn, cites Pearce v. Church Mut. Ins., 9th Dist. Medina
No. 02CA0101-M, 2003-Ohio-3147, ¶ 15.
{¶ 40} Pearce involved a notice of dismissal that the plaintiff filed after the trial
court had granted summary judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff later moved for
relief from judgment, which the trial court granted. The trial court then vacated the
summary judgment entry and dismissed the case without prejudice. Id. at ¶ 4-6.
{¶ 41} On appeal, the Ninth District Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff failed to
present the trial court with operative facts to establish that the motion for relief from
judgment should have been granted. The court, therefore, reversed the decision
granting the motion for relief from judgment. In this regard, the court noted that summary
judgment would be reinstated and the later-filed notice of dismissal was “of no force and
effect.” Id. at ¶ 15. Again, this was accurate, but it was in a different context – the case
did not involve a situation where the trial court’s decision was interlocutory or other
matters remained pending.
{¶ 42} Likewise, Sutton, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2004-T-0061, 2005-Ohio-5866,
involved a motion for relief from judgment, and does not appear to involve an interlocutory
order.1 The summary judgment order was based on the plaintiffs’ failure to respond to
1 In Sutton, one defendant, a doctor, filed a motion for summary judgment, which was


-16
the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and the court of appeals ultimately held
that the trial court did not err in denying the plaintiffs’ subsequent motion for relief from
judgment, because they failed to show excusable neglect. Id. at ¶ 15-16. In this
context, the court rejected, among other things, the plaintiffs’ contention of excusable
neglect based on the fact that they mailed their notice of dismissal to the court rather than
filing it in person before the summary judgment decision was filed. The court of appeals
noted that the plaintiffs were aware of the deadline to respond to the summary judgment
motion, and that “[a] notice of voluntary dismissal filed after the trial court enters summary
judgment is a nullity.” Id. at ¶ 16. Again, the context must be considered.
{¶ 43} The point is that none of these cases should be read as making a blanket
statement about voluntary dismissal without considering the circumstances that were
involved. Unlike Engelhart, Blair, Pearce, and Sutton, the summary judgment order in
the case before us was interlocutory, and under Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a), Poirier was permitted
to file a notice of dismissal without the trial court’s permission or intervention.
{¶ 44} The Supreme Court of Ohio has said that:
[O]nce a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses all claims against a defendant, the
court is divested of jurisdiction over those claims. “It is axiomatic that such
dismissal deprives the trial court of jurisdiction over the matter dismissed.
After its voluntary dismissal, an action is treated as if it had never been
granted before the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. There appears to have been another defendant, a hospital, but the decision of the court of appeals does not indicate what occurred with that defendant or whether the claims were still pending when the plaintiffs filed a notice of dismissal. In any event, the appeal was from denial of a motion for relief from judgment, not from the summary judgment decision. Sutton, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2004-T-0061, 2005-Ohio-5866, ¶ 1.


-17
commenced.” Zimmie v. Zimmie (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 94, 95, 11 OBR
396, 464 N.E.2d 142. The notice of voluntary dismissal is self-executing
and completely terminates the possibility of further action on the merits of
the case upon its mere filing, without the necessity of court intervention.
(Citations omitted.) Russo, 129 Ohio St.3d 250, 2011-Ohio-3177, 951 N.E.2d 414, at
¶ 17.
{¶ 45} Thus, in the case before us, once Poirier filed the notice of dismissal, the
action was terminated, and the trial court no longer had jurisdiction over the matter. As
a result, the court’s summary judgment order was of no further effect, and we have no
ability to consider whether summary judgment in PECo’s favor was properly granted.
We do have the ability to consider, however, whether the trial court erred in striking
Poirier’s notice of dismissal. The trial court did err in striking the notice, because it no
longer had the ability to do so.
{¶ 46} In responding to Poirier’s arguments, PECo contends that the amount of
fees to be granted was a collateral order that the court could still decide even if the case
had been voluntarily dismissed. As support for this proposition, Poirier cites ABN AMRO
Mtge. Group, Inc. v. Evans, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96120, 2011-Ohio-5654, and
Thallman v. Thallman, 3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-15-36, 2016-Ohio-992. Both cases
indicate that courts may still consider collateral issues that are unrelated to the merits of
an action, even if a Civ.R. 41(A)(1) voluntary dismissal has divested the court of
jurisdiction.
{¶ 47} The Supreme Court of Ohio has similarly held that despite dismissal of
actions, trial courts are allowed to “consider collateral issues like criminal contempt and


-18
Civ.R. 11 sanctions * * *.” State ex rel. Ahmed v. Costine, 100 Ohio St.3d 36, 2003-Ohio
4776, 795 N.E.2d 672, ¶ 5 (involving involuntary dismissal for failure to state a claim).
See also State ex rel. Hummel v. Sadler, 96 Ohio St.3d 84, 2002-Ohio-3605, 771 N.E.2d
853, ¶ 23 (noting that “despite a voluntary dismissal under Civ.R. 41(A)(1), a trial court
may consider certain collateral issues not related to the merits of the action,” including
criminal contempt, Civ. R. 11 sanctions, and R.C. 2323.51 motions to impose sanctions
for frivolous conduct).
{¶ 48} We have also held that collateral issues may be considered after voluntary
dismissal of a case. See State ex rel. J. Richard Gaier Co., L.P.A. v. Kessler, 97 Ohio
App.3d 782, 783, 647 N.E.2d 564 (2d Dist.1994) (trial court has jurisdiction to rule on
Civ.R. 11 motion for sanctions following plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of underlying action
under Civ.R. 41(A)(1)); Miami Valley Hosp. v. Payson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 18736,
2001 WL 1562103 (Dec. 7, 2001) (after voluntary dismissal, the trial court still had
jurisdiction to decide motion for sanctions under 29 U.S.C. 1132(g)(1), “particularly where,
as here, the motion was filed before the voluntary dismissal”).
{¶ 49} Nonetheless, the matter of attorney fees is not before us, and we need not
decide whether an award of fees under R.C. 1335.11 is a “collateral matter,” or related to
the merits, because the trial court has not yet awarded any specific fees. As was noted,
the trial court held issues pertaining to attorney fees in abeyance during the prior appeal,
and did not resolve the matter before Poirier filed the current appeal. If the trial court
chooses not to award any fees, or decides it now lacks jurisdiction to do so, the matter of
fees would be moot. The law is settled that appellate courts do not issue advisory
opinions to trial courts. Youngstown State Univ. v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 10th Dist.


-19
Franklin No. 15AP-755, 2016-Ohio-2649, 49 N.E.3d 382, ¶ 11 (10th Dist.); Broadnax v.
Greene Credit Serv., 118 Ohio App.3d 881, 894, 694 N.E.2d 167 (2d Dist.1997).
{¶ 50} The other points raised by Poirier’s brief pertain to matters already
discussed, and need not be further considered. Accordingly, Poirier’s assignment of
error, however it is construed, is sustained. This also resolves Poirier’s request that we
decide whether the court’s decision of August 16, 2017 is a final appealable order in light
of Poirier’s voluntary dismissal of the case. In this regard, we note that the trial court’s
August 16, 2017 order was filed in response to our specific direction, and the trial court
had also previously filed an order striking Poirier’s notice of dismissal. Poirier appealed
both of these orders, and we have jurisdiction to consider whether the trial court erred in
striking the voluntary notice of dismissal, even though we do not have the ability to
consider whether summary judgment was property rendered in PECo’s favor.
{¶ 51} Based on the preceding discussion, we conclude that the trial court erred in
striking Poirier’s notice of dismissal. Accordingly, Poirier’s assignment of error is
sustained.

Outcome: Poirier’s assignment of error having been sustained, the judgment of the
trial court striking Poirier’s notice of dismissal is reversed, and this cause is remanded for
further proceedings.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: