[Cite as Portage Roofing, Inc. v. Mike Coates, Constr. Co., Inc., 2017-Ohio-7560.]
STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
SEVENTH DISTRICT
PORTAGE ROOFING, INC. )
)
Plaintiff-Appellant )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 15 MA 0175
)
MIKE COATES CONSTRUCTION CO., ) OPINION
INC., ET AL. ) AND
) JUDGMENT ENTRY
Defendants-Appellees )
)
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Motion for Reconsideration
JUDGMENT: Denied
APPEARANCES:
For Portage Roofing, Inc. Attorney Dean Hoover
- Appellant Hudson Station, Suite 3
5 Atterbury Blvd.
Hudson, Ohio 44236
For Mike Coates Construction Co., Attorney Richard Goddard
Inc., Et. Al. - Appellees Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP
The Calfee Building
1405 East Sixth Street
Cleveland, OH 44114
JUDGES:
Hon. Mary DeGenaro
Hon. Gene Donofrio
Hon. Carol Ann Robb
Dated: September 7, 2017
[Cite as Portage Roofing, Inc. v. Mike Coates, Constr. Co., Inc., 2017-Ohio-7560.]
PER CURIAM.
{¶1} Plaintiff-Appellant, Portage Roofing, Inc., filed an application for
reconsideration of Portage Roofing, Inc. v. Coates Construction, Inc., 7th Dist. No. 15
MA 0175, 2017–Ohio–5710.
{¶2} "The test generally applied upon the filing of a motion for
reconsideration in the court of appeals is whether the motion calls to the attention of
the court an obvious error in its decision, or raises an issue for consideration that was
either not considered at all or was not fully considered by the court when it should
have been." Columbus v. Hodge, 37 Ohio App.3d 68, 523 N.E.2d 515 (1987),
paragraph one of the syllabus.
{¶3} The purpose of reconsideration is not to reargue one's appeal based on
dissatisfaction with the logic used and conclusions reached by an appellate court.
Victory White Metal Co. v. N.P. Motel Syst. Inc., 7th Dist. No. 04 MA 0245, 2005–
Ohio–3828, ¶ 2. "An application for reconsideration may not be filed simply on the
basis that a party disagrees with the prior appellate court decision." Hampton v.
Ahmed, 7th Dist. No. 02 BE 0066, 2005–Ohio–1766, ¶ 16 (internal citation omitted).
{¶4} On reconsideration, Portage reiterates the same argument it made on
direct appeal: that the jurisdictional priority rule precludes the Mahoning County court
from exercising jurisdiction over Coates' claims. This is merely a disagreement with
the decision reached by this Court. Portage does not call to our attention an obvious
error in our opinon.
{¶5} Portage's arguments regarding the jurisdictional priority rule were fully
considered by this Court prior to ruling on the matter. The motion for reconsideration
-2-
does not call to the attention of this Court an obvious error. Accordingly, Portage's
motion for reconsideration is denied.
DeGenaro, J., concurs.
Donofrio, J., concurs.
Robb, P. J., concurs.
Portage Roofing, Inc. v. Mike Coates, Constr. Co., Inc.
Combined Opinion