[Cite as Colfor Mfg., Inc. v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm., 2018-Ohio-712.]

STATE OF OHIO, CARROLL COUNTY 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

SEVENTH DISTRICT 

COLFOR MANUFACTURING, INC., 

 APPELLANT/PETITIONER, 

V. 

OHIO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, ET 

AL., 

 APPELLEES/RESPONDENTS. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO. 16 CA 0912 

OPINION 

AND 

JUDGMENT ENTRY 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Application for Reconsideration. 

JUDGMENT: Denied. 

APPEARANCES: 

For Appellant/Petitioner Attorney Gust Callas 

Attorney Whitney L. Willits 

220 Market Avenue South, Suite 1000 

Canton, Ohio 44702 

For Appellees/Respondents Attorney David A. Oppenheimer 

Assistant Attorney General 

615 W. Superior Ave., 11th Floor 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 

 

JUDGES: 

Hon. Gene Donofrio 

Hon. Cheryl L. Waite 

Hon. Carol Ann Robb 

 

 

 Dated: February 26, 2018 
[Cite as Colfor Mfg., Inc. v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm., 2018-Ohio-712.]

PER CURIAM. 

{¶1} 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 0912, 2017-

Ohio-9402. 

{¶2} 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.

{¶3} 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 untimely. 

{¶4} 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 
- 2 - 

address and that service is complete upon mailing. Civ.R. 5(B)(2)(c). 

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. 

{¶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. 

{¶6} 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 considered Colfor’s 

arguments in its direct appeal, these arguments cannot now be the basis for a motion 

for reconsideration. 

{¶7} For the reasons stated, Colfor’s motion for reconsideration is hereby 

denied. Costs taxed against Petitioner (Relator). 

{¶8} Final order. Clerk to serve notice as provided by Civil Rules. 

Donofrio, J., concurs 
- 3 - 

Waite, J., concurs 

Robb, P.J., concurs