ILNews

Court: private cause of action allowed

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Tackling an issue of first impression, the Indiana Court of Appeals determined the "Equal Access Law" in Indiana Code creates a private cause of action for bail agents.

In Dave Galloway in his capacity as Hendricks County Sheriff v. David Hadley, d/b/a D & D Bonding, No. 32A-04-0707-CV-400, Galloway appealed the trial court order granting Hadley a preliminary injunction against the use of a "preferred agent list" by the Hendricks County Sheriff's Department. The list contains the names of preferred bail agents, and at the request of an arrestee, an officer can contact an agent on the arrestee's behalf by using the list.

For years, Hadley, a licensed bondsman, was on this list; however, once Galloway took office as sheriff, Hadley's name was removed. The new preferred agent list only contained the names of bail agents who had made financial contributions to Galloway's political committee during his 2006 campaign. When Hadley discovered he was no longer on the list, he filed a complaint and sought a preliminary injunction against the use of the list.

At a hearing, Galloway testified he had learned from jail officers that Hadley wasn't on the list because he won't write bonds for African-Americans or Hispanics. Hadley said his insurance carrier prevents him from issuing bail for illegal immigrants. Hadley testified his business had sustained a dramatic reduction in volume since his name was taken off the list.

The court issued the injunctive order that prevented Galloway from using the preferred agent list.

In a matter of first impression, the Court of Appeals had to decide whether the Equal Access Law creates a private cause of action, which would allow the trial court subject-matter jurisdiction to hear Hadley's complaint.

Indiana's Equal Access Law, I.C. 27-10-3-18, states: "A person who holds a valid bail agent's license issued by the insurance commissioner and registered as required in section 17 of this chapter may have equal access to the jails of this state for the purpose of making bond, subject to this article and rules adopted under this article."

A statute creates a private cause of action when a statute imposes a duty for a particular individual's benefit, but not when the duty is for the public's benefit, wrote Judge Edward Najam. However, if the public receives an ancillary benefit when the duty is for an individual's benefit, it will not preclude a private cause of action. In this instance, the Equal Access Law doesn't explicitly state whether it confers a public or private benefit. The Court of Appeals ruled it confers a private benefit to bail agents, but the public does receive benefit as well, so Hadley can bring his private cause of action.

Galloway argued private causes of action can't be brought because the Indiana Department of Insurance has the authority to enforce Indiana's Bail Law, and when a statute includes a specific enforcement provision, a private cause of action cannot occur. However, the IDOI's jurisdiction doesn't pertain to the enforcement of the Equal Access Law, wrote Judge Najam, so Hadley's private cause of action is allowable.

The Court of Appeals also affirmed the grant of the preliminary injunction on the use of the preferred agent list. The trial court found that Hadley satisfied all of the requirements for a preliminary injunction, including that Hadley suffered irreparable harm, and there is a threat of continuing injury and harm if the injunction is not ordered.

Galloway argued Hadley wasn't denied access to the jail, the trial court abused its discretion in finding Hadley suffered irreparable harm, the court erroneously concluded no harm would befall Galloway should the injunction incur, the court abused its discretion in ruling public interest would be served by granting the injunction, and Hadley cannot seek injunctive relief because he has unclean hands.

The Court of Appeals was not persuaded by Galloway's arguments on each of the challenges he raised. In regards to Galloway's unclean hands argument, Judge Najam wrote that even though Hadley had once been a part of the preferred agent list it does not mean he has unclean hands. While Hadley's position is hypocritical in that he now has a problem with the use of the list, hypocrisy is not a cognizable legal issue.
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT