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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT