Court Opinion

ID: 9918888
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-16 20:07:55.385702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:28.044757
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Copper Creek Lodge, L.L.C. v. Pride One Constr. Servs., L.L.C., 2024-Ohio-38.]

                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                           ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                PORTAGE COUNTY

COPPER CREEK LODGE, LLC,                               CASE NO. 2023-P-0093

                 Plaintiff-Appellant,
                                                       Civil Appeal from the
        - vs -                                         Court of Common Pleas

PRIDE ONE CONSTRUCTION
SERVICES, LLC, et al.,                                 Trial Court No. 2022 CV 00476

                 Defendants-Appellees.

                                        MEMORANDUM
                                          OPINION

                                     Decided: January 8, 2024
                                    Judgment: Appeal dismissed

Robert W. McIntyre, Dinn, Hochman & Potter, LLC, 6105 Parkland Boulevard, Suite 100,
Cleveland, OH 44124 (For Plaintiff-Appellant).

Matthew K. Grasshoff, Eric B. Levasseur, and Aaron S. Evenchik, Hahn Loeser & Parks,
LLP, 200 Public Square, Suite 2800, Cleveland, OH 44114 (For Defendant-Appellee,
Pride One Construction Services, LLC.)

Lori E. Thompson, Gallagher, Gams, Tallan, Barnes & Littrell, LLP, 471 East Broad
Street, 19th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215 (For Defendant-Appellee, Grange Mutual
Casualty Company).

MATT LYNCH, J.

        {¶1}     On November 14, 2023, appellant, Copper Creek Lodge, LLC, filed an

appeal from an October 11, 2023 entry in which the trial court granted the motion to stay

the matter pending arbitration filed by appellee, Pride One Construction Services, LLC.

Pride One moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely and for lack of a final appealable

order. Appellant filed a response on December 14, 2023.
         {¶2}   The appeal is timely. The clerk of courts did not serve notice of the October

11, 2023 entry within the 3-day period as prescribed in Civ.R. 58(B). Therefore, the time

to appeal is tolled until the clerk completes service, which has yet to be done, and the

appeal is timely. The 30-day time period to file a notice of appeal was tolled regardless

of actual knowledge by the parties. Clermont Cty. Transp. Improvement Dist. v. Gator

Milford, L.L.C., 141 Ohio St.3d 542, 546.

         {¶3}   Now turning to Pride One’s contention that the appeal is not final. Pride

One posits that this case involves a commercial construction contract as defined by R.C.

2711.02(A) since it involves the construction of an eleven-building apartment complex

consisting of more than 180 separate units. Under R.C. 2711.02(D), only an order

denying a stay pending arbitration in a commercial construction contract action is a final

order.

         {¶4}   Here, the trial court did not deny, but granted, the motion to stay

proceedings pending arbitration; thus, there is no final order pursuant to R.C. 2711.02(D).

         {¶5}   Based on the foregoing, Pride One’s motion to dismiss is hereby granted,

notwithstanding the timeliness of the appeal, for a lack of a final order only.

         {¶6}   This appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of a final appealable order.

JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,

MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,

concur.

                                              2

Case No. 2023-P-0093