COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 73741 OLIVER DESIGN GROUP, INC. : ACCELERATED CASE : Plaintiff-Appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION BELL & HOWELL PUBLICATION : SYSTEMS CO., ET AL. : : PER CURIAM Defendants-Appellants : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION AUGUST 27, 1998 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: CIVIL APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CASE NO. CV-338113 JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: A. SCOTT FROMSON (#0063901) 160 Signature Square 1 25201 Chagrin Boulevard Cleveland, Ohio 44112 For Defendant-Appellant, MICHAEL J. GARVIN (#0025394) Bell & Howell Publication ALISON C. LITTLE (#0061568) Systems Co.: Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP 3300 BP America Building 200 Public Square Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2301 (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) For Defendant-Appellant, CHRISTOPHER J. CARNEY Studio Techne, Inc.: (#0037597) Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs 1375 E. 9th Street Suite 1700 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 -ii- For Defendant-Appellant, DONALD McFADDEN Michelle Getz Gutowski: (#0002233) 1700 Standard Building 1370 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 PER CURIAM: Defendant-appellant Bell & Howell Publication Systems Company ( Bell & Howell ) appeals from the trial court's order denying its motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration. Bell & Howell assigns the following error for our review: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING BELL & HOWELL'S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING -2- ARBITRATION AS REQUIRED BY OHIO REVISED CODE SECTION 2711.02. Finding Bell & Howell's assignment of error to have merit, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. On April 19, 1996, plaintiff-appellee Oliver Design Group, Inc. ( Oliver Design ) entered into an architectural services contract ( the Agreement ) with Bell & Howell. The Agreement was drafted by Oliver Design. Section F of the Agreement stated that the American Institute of Architects Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner & Architect B141-1987 edition ( AIA Standard Form ) was part of the Agreement. Article 7.1 of the AIA Standard Form stated: Claims, disputes or other matters in question between the parties to this Agreement arising out of or relation to this Agreement or breach thereof shall be subject to and decided by arbitration in accordance with the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association currently in effect unless the parties mutually agree otherwise. On July 29, 1997, Oliver Design filed a complaint based on an alleged breach of the Agreement. In its complaint, Oliver Design raised claims of breach of contract and lost profits against Bell & Howell. Oliver Design also asserted claims of interference with contract and appropriation of confidential information against defendants Michelle Getz Gutowski and Studio Techne, Inc. On November 3, 1997, Bell & Howell filed a motion to stay the instant case pending arbitration. Notwithstanding the clear -3- arbitration clause in the Agreement, and the mandate of R.C. 2711.02, the trial court denied Bell & Howell's motion to stay on November 26, 1997. On December 22, 1997, Bell & Howell filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's order denying the motion to stay.1 II. In its sole assignment of error, Bell & Howell asserts that the trial court erred in denying their motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration. Bell & Howell based their motion, and the instant appeal, on the clear mandate of R.C. 2711.02. R.C. 2711.02 governs the issuance of a stay of trial proceedings pending arbitration. This statute provides, in pertinent part: If any action is brought upon any issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for arbitration, the court in which the action is pending, upon being satisfied that the issue involved in the action is referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for arbitration, shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until the arbitration of the issue has been had in accordance with the agreement, provided the applicant for the stay is not in default in proceeding with arbitration. * * * (Emphasis added.) This court has held that the language of R.C. 2711.02 is mandatory and it "shall" be enforced. Krafcik v. USA Energy 1 We note that this court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to R.C. 2711.02. R.C. 2711.02 states, in part, that [a]n order under this section that grants or denies a stay of a trial of any action pending arbitration * * * is a final order and may be reviewed, affirmed, modified, or reversed on appeal * * *. -4- Consultants, Inc. (1995), 107 Ohio App.3d 59, 64. R.C. 2711.02 is based on an established public policy that favors and encourages arbitration, to avoid needless and expensive litigation. We note that the presence of co-defendants Gutowski and Studio Techne, who are not parties to the contract between Oliver Design and Bell & Howell, does not defeat the arbitration clause. See Krafcik, 107 Ohio App.3d at 64. The Agreement between Oliver Design and Bell & Howell contained an unambiguous arbitration clause. Pursuant to the Agreement's arbitration clause, Oliver Design's claims against Bell & Howell shall be subject to and decided by arbitration * * * unless the parties mutually agree otherwise. Therefore, we find that the trial court erred in denying Bell & Howell's motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration. Accordingly, appellant's assignment of error is sustained. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. -5- This cause is reversed and remanded. It is, therefore, considered that said appellants recover of said appellee their costs herein. It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Exceptions. TIMOTHY E. McMONAGLE, P.J. JOHN T. PATTON,JUDGE LEO M. SPELLACY, JUDGE N.B. This is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. -6- 22(B), 22(D), and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(B) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .