ILNews

Court clarifies responses under T.R. 56(I)

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals used a decision today to clarify that when a nonmoving party has received an enlargement of time pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 56(I), any response must be made within the additional time period granted by the trial court.

The issue arose in Marvin Jay Miller, M.D. v. Tiffany Brook Yedlowski, deceased, Mario Yedlowski and Kim Rinehart, No. 49A02-0901-CV-78, in which Dr. Marvin Jay Miller appealed of the denial of his motion for summary judgment. Tiffany Yedlowski's parents, Mario Yedlowski and Kim Rinehart, filed a complaint against Miller following the death of Tiffany while under his care at Larue Carter Hospital in Indianapolis.

Miller filed a motion for summary judgment; the parents filed a motion for enlargement of time to respond to his motion. They were granted a Sept. 4, 2008 deadline to respond to the motion.

Six days after the deadline, the parents filed a second motion for enlargement of time, requesting five more days to get their expert's report. Miller again filed for summary judgment, arguing he was entitled to it as a matter of law since the plaintiffs' hadn't responded or filed a continuance within the time limit set by the trial court.

The trial court denied Miller's motion, granted the parents' second motion for enlargement of time, and then allowed the parents to file their response more than ten days after their Sept. 4 deadline.

On interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals determined the trial court erred in granting the second motion for enlargement of time because it wasn't filed by the deadline imposed by the court. The Indiana Supreme Court, in HomEq Servicing Corp. v. Baker, 883 N.E.2d 95, 98 (Ind. 2008), established a bright-line rule that prohibits a trial court from considering summary judgment filings after the 30-day period, wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik.

Even though the plaintiffs filed their first motion within the 30-day period, their second one wasn't within the time period defined by the first motion for enlargement of time, so their response shouldn't have been allowed, per Thayer v. Gohil, 740 N.E.2d 1266, 1269 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).

"The rationale behind the rule requiring a nonmoving party to respond to a motion for summary judgment ... within thirty days does not vanish because the trial court has happened to grant one extension of time," wrote the judge. "That is, the nonmoving party should not be rewarded and relieved from the restriction of responding within the time limit set by the court because he or she has had the good fortune of one enlargement of time."

Because the parents' response was filed late, it can't be considered by the trial court and leaves no evidence to oppose Miller's motion for summary judgment. The appellate court remanded for entry of summary judgment in favor of the doctor.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  2. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  5. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

ADVERTISEMENT