ILNews

COA affirms dismissal of case 18 years after filing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that a Henry Circuit judge correctly dismissed a union’s complaint about a manufacturing plant closure more than two decades ago, finding that the union failed to prosecute the case for 18 years and that was an adequate basis for dismissal.

In United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 2371, Official Bargaining Agent, et al. v. Merchandising Equipment Group, Div. of MEG Manufacturing Corp., et al., No. 33A05-1107-CP-345, the appellate court analyzed a lawsuit dating back to the Cambridge City manufacturing plant closure in 1992 in which 220 former employees of Merchandising Equipment Group, Division of MEG Manufacturing Corporation, lost their jobs.

The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 2371 is the employees’ union representative. Employees believed that at the time of their termination they were owed compensation totaling $3.3 million. The employees filed notices in June 1992 to hold a mechanic’s lien and corporate employees’ lien, and the next year filed a complaint against Hewlett-Packard Company Financing and Remarketing Division because of security interests it held in the MEG property. The union made a novel argument under Indiana law in claiming that pursuant to the mechanic’s lien and corporate employees’ lien statutes, the employees’ liens were superior to HP’s and the bank’s.  

But the case barely moved forward, except for the bank’s filing of a summary judgment motion in late 1995 and HP’s filing a motion for summary judgment in early 1996. The trial judge recused himself because of a conflict of interest and the Hon. John L. Kellam took over as special judge in 1996. He held a summary judgment hearing, but he didn’t rule after that. Status conferences were requested and held in 2001 and 2008, but eventually HP and the bank filed a Trial Rule 41(E) motion to dismiss because so much time had passed. After a hearing where the union objected, the special judge granted the motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute.

Describing this delay as “unprecedented,” the Court of Appeals rejected the union’s argument that it didn’t move forward because it was waiting for a summary judgment motion from the special judge. The appellate panel noted the union could have requested a ruling, additional status conferences, another hearing, a pretrial conference or even a trial date to address the delays.

“We recognize that dismissals are generally disfavored and do not condone the special judge’s failure to rule on the summary-judgment motions for fourteen years,” Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote. “Nevertheless, the burden of moving the litigation is upon the plaintiff, not the court. Given the Union’s decade-long delay and lack of excuse for the delay, we conclude that this case is one of those limited circumstances where dismissal is warranted.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT