For the second time in six weeks, an Ohio court has issued a decision highlighting some of the differences between an arbitration proceeding and a court proceeding. In October it was Judge Frye of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, holding that the savings statute does not apply to arbitrations.
This time it was the Ohio Supreme Court, holding that orders granting or denying a stay of a court proceeding pending the outcome of arbitration are immediately appealable, even where the trial court does not include Civ.R. 54(B) language in its entry. The case is Mynes v. Brooks, 2009-Ohio-5946 [PDF].
Civ.R. 54(B) provides that where an order disposes of less than all of the claims or defenses in a case, a trial court may make it immediately appealable if it finds that there is “no just reason for delay”; absent such a finding, an order which disposes of less than all of the claims or defenses is appealable only upon final adjudication of the entire case.
At issue in Mynes was the provision in R.C. 2711.02(C), which provides that
“[A]n order . . . that grants or denies a stay of a trial of any action pending arbitration . . . is a final order and may be reviewed, affirmed, modified, or reversed on appeal pursuant to the Rules of Appellate Procedure and, to the extent not in conflict with those rules, Chapter 2505. of the Revised Code.”
The Court ruled that this provision demonstrates that “the General Assembly has already determined that orders under the ambit of R.C. 2711.02(C) are final and appealable. Therefore, there is no need for the trial court to determine whether to certify the order for appeal.”
The Court also likened the case to its ruling in Sullivan v. Anderson Township, 2009-Ohio-1971 [PDF], in which the Court held that an order denying immunity to a political subdivision is a final order and therefore immediately appealable under comparable languate in R.C. 2744.02(C).
