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. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  2. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  3. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

  4. "The commission will review applications and interview qualified candidates in March and April." Riiiiiight. Would that be the same vaulted process that brought us this result done by "qualified candidates"? http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774 Perhaps a lottery system more like the draft would be better? And let us not limit it to Indiana attorneys so as to give the untainted a fighting chance?

  5. Steal a little, and they put you in jail. Steal a lot, and they make you king. Bob Dylan ala Samuel Johnson. I had a very similar experience trying to hold due process trampling bureaucrats responsible under the law. Consider this quote and commentary:"'When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,' [Richard] Nixon told his interviewer. Those words were largely seen by the American public -- which continued to hold the ex-president in low esteem -- as a symbol of his unbowed arrogance. Most citizens still wanted to believe that no American citizen, not even the president, is above the law." BWHaahaaahaaa!!!! http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/When-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not-illegal.html

ADVERTISEMENT