Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Carroll
OF PROCEEDINGS: Application for Reconsideration.
Appellant/Petitioner Attorney Gust Callas, Attorney Whitney
Appellees/Respondents Attorney David A. Oppenheimer Assistant
Gene Donofrio Hon. Cheryl L. Waite Hon. Carol Ann Robb
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Appellant, Colfor Manufacturing, Inc., has filed a motion for
reconsideration asking this court to reconsider our decision
and judgment entry in which we affirmed the judgment of the
Carroll County Common Pleas Court. See Colfor Mfg., Inc.
v. Ohio Civ. Rights Commission, 7th Dist. No. 16 CA
A motion for reconsideration is filed under App.R. 26(A)(1).
The test generally applied in evaluating a motion for
reconsideration is whether it calls to the attention of the
court an obvious error in its decision or raises an issue for
our consideration that was either not at all or was not fully
considered by us when it should have been. Matthews v.
Matthews, 5 Ohio App.3d 140, 143, 450 N.E.2d 278 (10th
Dist.1981). An application for reconsideration is not
designed for use in instances where a party simply disagrees
with the conclusions reached and the logic used by an
appellate court. State v. Owens, 112 Ohio App.3d
334, 336, 678 N.E.2d 956 (11th Dist.1996). Rather, App.R. 26
provides a mechanism by which a party may prevent
miscarriages of justice that could arise when an appellate
court makes an obvious error or renders an unsupportable
decision under the law. Id.
A motion for reconsideration must be filed within ten days of
the judgment. App.R. 26(A)(1)(a). The judgment entry in this
case was filed December 28, 2017. Colfor did not file its
motion until January 16, 2019. Thus, Colfor's motion was
Colfor urges us to consider its motion despite its
untimeliness contending our judgment was not mailed until
January 3, 2018.
Civ.R. 58(B) provides in pertinent part: "Within three
days of entering the judgment upon the journal, the clerk
shall serve the parties in a manner prescribed by Civ.R. 5(B)
and note the service in the appearance docket. Upon serving
the notice and notation of the service in the appearance
docket, the service is complete." Civ.R. 5(B) provides
that a document can be served by mailing it to the last known
address and that service is complete upon mailing. Civ.R.
App.R. 14(A) and Civ.R. 6(A) both state that in computing any
period of time prescribed or allowed by the rules, the day of
the act from which the designated period of time begins to
run shall not be included. These rules also explain:
"When the period of time prescribed or allowed is less
than seven days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal
holidays shall be excluded in the computation." App.R.
14(A); Civ.R. 6(A).
Niki D'Atri Ents. v. Hines, 7th Dist. No. 13 MA
57, 2014-Ohio-283, ¶¶ 4-5.
Turning to the timeline in this case, December 28, 2017 was a
Thursday. Thus, the clerk's three days to serve the
parties by mail began to run on Friday December 29, 2017. Due
to the weekend, followed by the legal holiday of New
Year's Day on Monday January 1, 2018, the second day of
the three-day time limit was Tuesday January 2, 2018. The
clerk then timely served the parties by mail on Wednesday
January 3, 2018. Thus, Colfor was required to file its motion
for reconsideration by Monday January 8, 2018 (ten days after
filing of the judgment, plus one day because the tenth day
was a Sunday). Accordingly, Colfor's motion for
reconsideration is untimely.
Even if Colfor's motion for reconsideration was timely,
the arguments it raises were already fully considered by this
court. App.R. 26 allows an appellant to request
reconsideration of an obvious error in the court's
decision or to raise an issue for consideration that was
either not considered at all or was not fully considered by
the court when it should have been. Because we have already