Kinderdine v. Callos Staffing

2016 Ohio 5483

Opinion

STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

SEVENTH DISTRICT

TRACY KINDERDINE, et al. )

)

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTS )

) CASE NO. 2014 MA 0181 VS. )

) OPINION CALLOS STAFFING COMPANY, LLC, et ) AND al. ) JUDGMENT ENTRY )

DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES )

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Motion for Reconsideration

JUDGMENT: Denied.

JUDGES:

Hon. Mary DeGenaro Hon. Cheryl L. Waite Hon. Carol A. Robb

Dated: August 19, 2016

APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellants Attorney W. Craig Bashein Attorney Anthony N. Palombo Terminal Tower, 35th Floor 50 Public Square Cleveland, Ohio 44113

Attorney Paul Flowers Terminal Tower, 35th Floor 50 Public Square Cleveland, Ohio 44113

Attorney Thomas J. Wilson 100 Federal Plaza East, Suite 926 Youngstown, Ohio 44503-1811

For Defendant-Appellee Attorney Steven G. Janik Attorney Audrey K. Bentz Attorney Ellyn Mehendale 9200 South Hills Blvd. Suite 300 Cleveland, Ohio 44147

3

PER CURIAM.

{¶1} Tracy Kinderdine, et al., Plaintiff-Appellants, filed a motion for reconsideration in the appeal of Kinderdine et al., v. Callos Staffing Company, LLC, 7th Dist. No. 14 MA 0174, 0177, 0180, 0181, 2016-Ohio-4815.

{¶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). Nor is it "a mechanism to raise an entirely new argument and issue to the appellate court that was not raised in the appellate brief." State v. Wellington, 7th Dist. No. 14 MA 0115, 2015-Ohio-2095, ¶ 9.

{¶4} The Kinderdines concede that this Court applied the correct law and they have alleged no errors or defects in the proceedings. They argue that this Court "should have concluded that triable issues of fact exist." This Court fully considered the law and facts presented by this appeal when ruling on the matter. Because the Kinderdines' motion for reconsideration merely indicates disagreement with the

4

decision reached by the Court, as opposed to error, the motion for reconsideration is denied.

DeGenaro, J., concurs.

Waite, J., concurs.

Robb, J. concurs.