A judgment on one of several claims is not final and appealable unless the judge in the lower court especially determines no just reason for delay. Rule 54 (B) of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. Logue v. Wilson, 45 Ohio App. 2d 132; 74 Ohio Op. 2d 140; 341 N.E.2d 641 (1975). See also Whitaker-Merrell Co. v. Geupel Construction Co., 29 Ohio St. 2d 184, 186-87; 58 Ohio Op. 2d 399, 400401; 280 N.E.2d 922, 924-925 (1972). There was no such determination found in the journal entry in the instant case pertaining to the temporary injunction which Defendant-Appellant seeks to appeal. Therefore, Plaintiff-Appellees submit that, under Rule 20 of the Local Rules for the Eighth District Court of Appeals (Cuyahoga County), this Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal upon the temporary injunction granted to the Plaintiff-Appellees by the Cuyahoga Court of Common Pleas and should dismiss the appeal filed by Mr. Harold Reader, attorney for the Defendant-Appellant Ohio Fair Plan Underwriting Association.

Respectfully submitted.

Miss MARIE CHARVAT,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Cleveland, Ohio.

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY

No. 38936

MARIE CHARVAT, ET AL., PLAINTIFF-APPELLEES,

V8.

OHIO FAIR PLAN UNDERWRITING, ASSOCIATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Plaintiff-appellees have moved this Court for an order dismissing this appeal for the asserted reason that the Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction to entertain it. Defendant-appellant Ohio Fair Plan Underwriting Association (hereinafter "Ohio Fair Plan") submits that the Court of Appeals does have jurisdiction and that the Motion to Dismiss should be denied.

The essential facts can be summarized as follows: On October 20. 1977, plaintiffappellees filed suit against Ohio Fair Plan for damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief. Plaintiff-appellees demand for injunctive relief consisted of a request that Ohio Fair Plan be enjoined from cancelling a policy of insurance issued to plaintiff-appellees. Ohio Fair Plan asserted a defense, among others, that the Trial Court was without jurisdiction in the case as the result of plaintiff-appellees' failure to exhaust their administrative remedies. On January 6, 1978, the Trial Court entered the following order: "Temporary injunction granted. Court retains jurisdiction pending final hearing on complaint for permanent injunction."

Ohio Fair Plan instituted this appeal from the order granting the temporary injunction.

Although it is undisputed that the Trial Court has not disposed of all claims before it, the Court of Appeals nevertheless has jurisdiction to enterain this appeal. Two decisions are in point.

In Central Ohio Co-Operative Milk Producers, Inc. v. Rowland, 29 Ohio App. 2d 236 (1972), the defendants appealed from an order of the trial court granting a temporary injunction which enjoined defendants from consigning milk to anyone other than plaintiff. The Court of Appeals for Washington County held that the entry of the temporary injunction was an appealable order. The Court explained: "Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the appeal of plaintiff as it was based upon a non-appealable order. We think that this motion is not well taken. The purpose of the temporary injunction was to compel defendants to honor the contract which they had entered into. An injunction restraining the breach of a contract is a negative specific enforcement of that contract. The jurisdiction of equity to grant such injunction is substantially coincident with its jurisdiction to compel specific performance.

See Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence, Section 1341 (4th ed.). In an action for injunction wherein the ultimate relief sought is the adjudication of plaintiff's and defendant's property rights in a contract, the granting of a temporary injunction is a final order and appealable." (Emphasis supplied)

Similarly, in State ex. rel. Cook v. Lakis, 94 Ohio L. Abs. 476 (Cuy. Co. App. 1964), defendant appealed from a judgment granting a temporary injunction that enjoined one operation of a bar. Defendant contended, among other things, that the trial court had abused its discretion in the entry of the temporary injunction. The Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County held as follows: "Under this set of facts, we conclude and hold that, while ordinarily a temporary injunction alone is not a final appealable order, when such order or judgment amounts to an abuse of discretion affecting a substantial right of the appellant, it is appealable. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled."

On the basis of the foregoing authorities, the Court of Appeals does have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. Hence, plaintiff-appellees' Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction should be denied. Respectfully submitted.

HAROLD H. READER,
Attorney for Appellant.

Article Concerning Miss Charvat's Neighborhood

[From the Cleveland Press, Mar. 23, 1978]

OHIO CITY

(By Ruth R. Miller)

"Two different worlds" defines Ohio City, Cleveland's oldest neighborhood. In less than ten years it has changed from an area that was written off as a neighborhood beyond hope to a model of renovation and rehabilitation.

Ohio City is one of the most widely known and visited neighborhoods. It is an area of contrasts and contradictions.

Landmarks like Fries and Schuele, the Central National Bank, Fridrich's, the Lorain-Fulton Bakery, the Cleveland Casket Co. and the Hot Dog Inn operate side by side with the Taco Palace, the Bayberry Shoppe, Sadez and Son Furniture, Heck's, Ohio City Tavern and the Market Street Exchange, where one can eat at the same table Elliot Ness used when he was Cleveland's Safety Director. Countless antique shops have all but replaced the Hungarian restaurants along Lorain.

Bounded by W. 25th St., Lake Ave., Cuyahoga River, and Monroe St., Ohio City is the site of the oldest church in the Western Reserve, St. John's Episcopal, built 1836; the oldest Catholic structure in the city, St. Patrick's Church, and a lovely version of a Gothic meeting house, Trinity Lutheran Church.

In the latter part of the last century, its Millionaire's Row along Franklin Blvd. included some of Cleveland's choicest mansions and most stately homes. By the middle of this century, the mansions, as well as the modest frame homes and multi-family dwellings, began falling into disrepair and blight.

Many of the German and Irish working class families were moving to the suburbs and being replaced by Appalachians and Hispanics. By the mid-1960's the area was being written off as another helpless tax delinquent, abandoned neighborhood.

Today Ohio City is a fascinatingly diverse community well along the road to rebirth and revival. It has whole streets of beautifully restored century homes, several new businesses; a heterogeneous population of young newcomers and long-time residents, and a highly varied distribution of classes.

Four institutions, known as the anchors of the neighborhood; St. Ignatius High School, Lutheran Medical Center, West Side Market and the Cleveland Public Library's Carnegie West Branch, have announced extensive plans for renovation and expansion totalling close to $30 million.

"Going uphill is harder than going downhill," says Edward J. Wagner, vice president of Cardinal Federal Savings and Loan Assn. Cardinal and its subsidiary, WSFS Development Corp. have played an important part in the revitalization of Ohio City.

"In 1968, Bruce Hedderson moved to Cleveland from Toronto," Wagner explained. "He saw the neighborhood and he saw beyond the deterioration and decline to the possibility of restoring homes, as had been done in Toronto and other cities."

Hedderson talked to other people and interested them in the idea of restoration. Between 1968 and 1972, twelve houses were bought and restored.

"In 1974-75 this was a buyer's market," Wagner stated. "Today it's a seller's market. There has been a 75 to 150 percent increase in the cost of acquisition. The value of some houses is up to $60-70,000. Rentals are anywhere between $75 in an unrestored building to $400 in a restored one."

Seventy-five-year-old Mrs. Ellen David Vonderau, born in Ohio City, built, in 1976, the first new house at a cost of about $30,000. At the groundbreaking, she stated "I want to live the rest of my life where it all began for me, in Ohio City." There are those who say that the influx of new residents and the rise in cost of housing, particularly the higher rents, have displaced the older and poor residents. Representatives of the Hispanic population and social service agencies especially voice this complaint.

Wagner and David Shaw, executive director of the Ohio City Redevelopment Assn., deny that the "new pioneers" have pushed out former residents.

Lillian Craig, coordinator of the Multi-Service Center, on Bridge Ave., providing legal service agrees to some extent with Wagner and Shaw. "When a dwelling is purchased, residents move out of the house, but not the area. This is still a neighborhood of poor people; we have a high client population of Ethnics, Appalachians, Puerto Ricans and Blacks, and there is a high demand for food."

Eighty Vietnamese families live quietly in close proximity to one another, trying to maintain their culture and traditions. Last year at a multi-culture neighborhood event at St. Paul's both Puerto Rican and Vietnamese food was served and the music of both was played by teenage groups.

More than ten thousand Hispanic live within this area. The community of Spanish speaking people have its origins in South and Central America, the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico. They are not in the mainstream of Ohio City redevelopment. Language difficulty is often given as the reason. Many in the Hispanic community feel that this is an excuse. "No real attempt has been made for our input," stated one source.

(The year-old Ohio City Block Club Assn. with a thousand members is evidence of the heterogenous spirit that is trying to unite all factions.

Differing groups are sitting down together, trying to work for the good of the neighborhood. Both sides, the old and the new, are working together.

Hap Gray, chairman of the Community Development Committee said, “Our strongest approach to safety is people watching out for each other. Our neighbors, the Tricskos, have lived here over thirty years. When we're gone, they keep an eye on things for us."

His wife, Pat, added, "After living in New York and hardly knowing even the neighbors on either side of us, this was new to us. Now we're in a real neighborhood. We know hundreds of people here. We plan to be here for the rest of our lives."

APPENDIX Q

CENTER FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST SUIT AGAINST

ALLSTATE

Press Release-LOS ANGELES, CALIF., Feb. 22, 1978

On behalf of Assemblywoman Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles), attorneys at the Center for Law in the Public Interest today filed a complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court against the Allstate Insurance Company. The suit charges Allstate with illegally setting auto insurance rates. "The excessively high insurance rates have cost East Compton residents approximately $500,000.00 in additional premiums," said the Los Angeles legislator.

"The lawsuit arose from a complaint originally filed by a resident of my district at a community workshop on auto insurance," said Waters.

"In that complaint the resident noted a sharp rise in rates nearly 100%. Investigations by the State Department of Insurance disclosed that Allstate decided in December 1976 to merge all of the city of Compton into metropolitan Los Angeles territory for rate making purposes. Prior to that time only a portion of Compton was included in the larger more expensive rating district," noted Waters.

Charging Allstate with improper and arbitrary action (a position confirmed by a recent California State Insurance Department's special investigation into the propriety of this territorial merger), the Center's suit seeks a Court order requiring Allstate to return those funds improperly collected by the company as a result of its invalid rate increase.

The Center's suit is the first to seek restitution of insurance premiums illegally collected by a company as a result of an arbitrary territorial demarcation. It follows on the heels of a recent ruling by the State Insurance Commission ordering insurance companies to reassess their current territorial rating system to determine whether the arbitrary drawing of geographic rate boundaries penalize areas of the cities whose claims would not otherwise justify the high rates they are being forced to pay.

"We hope this suit serves as a warning to insurance companies that the people are fed up with excessive auto insurance rates," concludes Waters.

For additional information, call Assemblywoman Waters at 582-7371. If not available, call the Center for Law in the Public Interest at 879-5588.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES MAXINE WATERS, ACTING FOR THE INTERESTS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC, PLAINTIFF,

บ.

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, AND DOES, ONE THROUGH TWENTY,

INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND RESTITUTION

INTRODUCTION

This complaint by a member of the California State Assembly generally seeks injunctive relief from the defendant insurance company's unreasonable and unlawful rate-making policies, and restitution to defendant's customers of approximately $500,000 in excess insurance premiums unlawfully collected.

In December of 1976, Allstate Insurance Company ("Allstate") merged all of the City of Compton plus another smaller area into its "Metropolitan Los Angeles" territory for rate-making purposes. Prior to that time, only part of

Compton was included in the metropolitan district. This reapportionment resulted in a rate increase to affected Compton drivers insured by Allstate.

Pursuant to a complaint by an Allstate policyholder. the California State Insurance Department conducted a special investigation into the propriety of this merger. That study found that Allstate had little or no basis for its action. Allstate thereafter voluntarily severed all of Compton and other affected areas from the metropolitan district, and, effective October 17, 1977, returned the rate approximately to the pre-December 1976 level. However, the company retained all of the excess premiums-estimated at $500,000-collected during the ten-month period during which the high rates were in effect.

Plaintiff brings this action in order to enjoin Allstate from again improperly or arbitrarily setting insurance rates anywhere in the State of California, and to obtain restitution of those funds improperly collected by Allstate as a result of its invalid rate increase.

Injunctive relief and restitution are available to plaintiff pursuant to Business and Professions Code § 17535, and Civil Code § 3369.

PARTIES

Plaintiff Maxine Waters.-1. Plaintiff Maxine Waters is a resident of the City of Los Angeles, and the State Assemblywoman from the Forty-Eighth Assembly District. She brings this action on behalf of the general public, pursuant to § 17535 of the Business and Professions Code and § 3369 of the Civil Code of the State of California.

Defendant Allstate Insurance Company.-2. Defendant, Allstate Insurance Company ("Allstate") is an insurer organized and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois and, at all times material thereto, is and was doing business in the State of California. Allstate is a major underwriter of private passenger automobile insurance in this state.

Defendant Does.-3. The true names and capacities of defendants does one through twenty, inclusive, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, are unknown to plaintiff at this time, who therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious names, and when the true names and capacities of such defendants are ascertained, plaintiff will amend this complaint to insert same. Plantiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that each defendant named as a Doe is in some manner responsible for the allegations hereinafter set forth.

CAUSES OF ACTION-FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND RESTITUTION: CIVIL CODE §3369

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation of paragraphs one through four set forth above.

5. In December, 1976, Allstate reapportioned its rating territories in the City of Compton, and elsewhere in Los Angeles, California. Prior to December, 1976, one part of the City of Compton was included in the Metropolitan Los Angeles territory, and was assigned higher insurance rates than the remainder of Compton, which was not part of Metropolitan Los Angeles. The reapportionment effected in December, 1976, merged the two sections of Compton into its Metropolitan Los Angeles territory, and increased the rates of both sections of the city.

6. Upon the receipt of a complaint challenging the reapportionment described in paragraph five, the Commissioner of the Insurance Department of the State of California ordered a special investigation of Allstate's basis for this reapportionment. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that this special investigation concluded that defendant Allstate possessed no sound statistical or empirical basis for effecting such a reorganization of its territorial rates. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant Allstate was informed of that conclusion arrived at by the special investigation of the Insurance Department.

7. Effective October 17, 1977, defendant Allstate agreed to reverse its prior decision to reapportion its rating territories, and merged all of Compton into a low rated territory, severing another small territory as well. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that this reversal and institution of lower rates was the result of the conclusion of the special investigation that the earlier reapportionment was without validity.