Portage Roofing, Inc. v. Mike Coates Constr. Co., Inc.
2017 Ohio 7559
Ohio Ct. App. 9th2017Background
- Portage Roofing filed a motion asking the Seventh District to certify a conflict to the Ohio Supreme Court after this Court issued a June 21, 2017 judgment in Portage Roofing, Inc. v. Coates Construction, Inc.
- Portage argued that this Court’s judgment conflicted with four appellate decisions from the Eighth and Tenth Districts regarding the jurisdictional priority rule for duplicate litigation.
- The jurisdictional priority rule concerns which court should proceed when duplicate or substantially similar claims are filed in different courts.
- The cited decisions largely involved identical parties and the same or substantially similar causes of action pending in different courts/districts.
- The Seventh District concluded the present case involved different claims litigated in Summit and Mahoning Counties, so the priority rule was not applicable here.
- The Court denied Portage’s motion to certify a conflict to the Ohio Supreme Court, finding the asserted conflict was based on factual differences, not on a rule of law suitable for certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jurisdictional priority rule requires filing later contract claims in the same court where earlier claims under the same contract were filed | Portage: the rule requires later contract claims to be filed in the same court as the earlier-filed claims | Coates: the rule does not apply here; the cases are factually different and certification is improper | Denied: Court held the rule was not applicable because different claims were pending in different counties; conflict claim is factual, not legal |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Phillips v. Polcar, 51 Ohio App.2d 97 (Eighth Dist.) (applied jurisdictional priority rule where same parties and claims were involved)
- Stratton v. Robey, 70 Ohio App.2d 4 (Tenth Dist.) (applied priority rule to substantially similar causes of action in different forums)
- Glidden Co. v. HM Holdings, Inc., 109 Ohio App.3d 721 (Eighth Dist.) (declined to apply priority rule across state lines but cited the rule as policy guidance to avoid duplicative litigation)
- Whitelock v. Gilbane Bldg. Co., 66 Ohio St.3d 594 (Ohio 1993) (sets the three-part standard for certifying a conflict between appellate courts)