ILNews

COA: Second amended complaint allowed

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

A former Steak 'n Shake employee appealed the trial court's dismissal of his claims of defamation and invasion of privacy against the company, which the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and remanded today.

In William H. Hart v. Walter C. Webster and The Steak-n-Shake Co.,  No. 49A05-0802-CV-47, William Hart filed a complaint against Walter Webster and The Steak 'n Shake Co., claiming defamation and invasion of privacy against both parties as a result of Webster's investigation of allegations that Hart violated the company's gratuity policy and engaged in unethical relationships with vendors. Hart was cleared of any wrongdoing but claims Webster "maliciously communicated" to other employees, vendors, and people who did business with Steak 'n Shake that Hart had engaged in unethical conduct as vice president of purchasing.

He claimed as a result of the "embarrassment, humiliation, and severe emotional and physical distress" he suffered because of the investigation that he became disabled and couldn't work. Steak 'n Shake fired him as a result.

The defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss; Hart filed an amended complaint. The trial court dismissed Hart's amended complaint without prejudice and ordered him to file another complaint within 15 days. The trial court also denied his motion to reconsider the order of dismissal under Trial Rule 12(B)(6). Then, the court granted the defendant's joint motion to reconsider the ruling on a motion to dismiss under T.R. 12(B)(1) and dismissed Hart's complaint in its entirety, with prejudice. However, the court didn't specify whether it was referring to Hart's original complaint, his amended complaint, the second amended complaint he filed, or all three.

The trial court did properly dismiss Hart's original complaint and amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because his claims of suffering emotional and physical distress that made him unable to work fell under the Workers' Compensation Act, which must be ruled on by the Workers' Compensation Board, wrote Judge Patricia Riley.

Although it is unclear if the trial court actually did dismiss the second amended complaint, the trial court erred in dismissing it because in it, Hart made no mention of any physical injury, disability, or impairment, so the Workers' Compensation Act wouldn't apply to the second amended complaint. In that one, Hart claimed damages to his personal and business reputation, humiliation, and emotional injuries.

Hart also wasn't precluded from filing his second amended complaint even though the trial court dismissed his previous ones with prejudice. The appellate court remanded to the trial court for further proceedings on Hart's second amended complaint, beginning with an opportunity for Webster and Steak 'n Shake to file a response, wrote the judge.

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. Frankly, it is tragic that you are even considering going to an expensive, unaccredited "law school." It is extremely difficult to get a job with a degree from a real school. If you are going to make the investment of time, money, and tears into law school, it should not be to a place that won't actually enable you to practice law when you graduate.

  2. As a lawyer who grew up in Fort Wayne (but went to a real law school), it is not that hard to find a mentor in the legal community without your school's assistance. One does not need to pay tens of thousands of dollars to go to an unaccredited legal diploma mill to get a mentor. Having a mentor means precisely nothing if you cannot get a job upon graduation, and considering that the legal job market is utterly terrible, these students from Indiana Tech are going to be adrift after graduation.

  3. 700,000 to 800,000 Americans are arrested for marijuana possession each year in the US. Do we need a new justice center if we decriminalize marijuana by having the City Council enact a $100 fine for marijuana possession and have the money go towards road repair?

  4. I am sorry to hear this.

  5. I tried a case in Judge Barker's court many years ago and I recall it vividly as a highlight of my career. I don't get in federal court very often but found myself back there again last Summer. We had both aged a bit but I must say she was just as I had remembered her. Authoritative, organized and yes, human ...with a good sense of humor. I also appreciated that even though we were dealing with difficult criminal cases, she treated my clients with dignity and understanding. My clients certainly respected her. Thanks for this nice article. Congratulations to Judge Barker for reaching another milestone in a remarkable career.

ADVERTISEMENT