added). According to Defendants, Ater I and Ater II involved the “same claim.” They therefore contend that, even though Plaintiffs filed a notice of dismissal “without prejudice” in Ater II, this language was ineffective to evade the automatic application of the double dismissal rule. At the outset, the Court notes that Ater III, in which Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment construing obligations under the hospital’s insurance policy, is of a completely different nature than the claims involved in Ater I, Ater II, or Ater IV. Even though the declaratory judgment action relied on the same factual foundation as the medical malpractice actions, the issues are completely separate and distinct. See Hershiser v. BOS Corp., 69 Ohio App.3d 186, 188, 590 N.E.2d 323, 324 (Ohio Ct.App.1990) (<HOLDING>). The only relevant inquiry, therefore, is
holding dismissal for failure to comply with rule 8 was dismissal of entire action which was appealable final order holding that plaintiffs were entitled to vacate final order of dismissal as void when they did not receive the motion for dismissal or notice of the hearing on the order until after the dismissal was entered holding appealable dismissal on grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction particularly where the plaintiff cannot cure the defect that led to dismissal holding district court dismissal of plaintiffs present action did not constitute prior action  and thus did not count as third strike holding that plaintiffs dismissal of personal injury action and subsequent dismissal of declaratory judgment action concerning extent of tortfeasors insurance coverage did not trigger double dismissal rule