ILNews

Court tackles 2 first-impression issues

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court ruled on a case today in which there were two issues of first impression, finding consolidation of a trial with a preliminary injunction hearing without notice isn't a reversible error unless a showing of prejudice can be made.

In John C. Roberts, M.D. v. Community Hospitals of Indiana, Inc., No. 49S02-0804-CV-189, the high court was faced with two issues Indiana courts hadn't directly ruled on - the standard of review of a trial court's decision to advance and consolidate a trial on the merits with a preliminary injunction, and whether a party which solicits the equivalent of a final judgment waives any challenges to consolidation as improper.

Dr. John C. Roberts was a resident in Community Hospitals' Family Medicine Residence Program under a one-year contract. Despite tardiness and absenteeism from work, Roberts' contract was renewed for a second year. After several warnings about his missing exams and not showing up for shifts, Community terminated his contract. Roberts sued for breach of contract and the trial court held a preliminary injunction hearing. The court then consolidated without notice the hearing with a trial on the merits pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 65(A)(2), denying Roberts' application for a preliminary injunction, and entering final judgment in favor of Community. The trial court also denied Roberts' motion to correct error, in which he argued if he had received notice, he would have called other witnesses and presented more evidence, but he didn't specify names or facts.

The high court hasn't addressed T.R. 65(A)(2) since it was enacted in 1970, and turned to federal courts to see how they have interpreted the similar Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(2). The prevailing federal rule is that allegations of prejudice by the consolidation must be specific, which means more than simply identifying the steps that might be possible to produce evidence not shown at the preliminary injunction stage, wrote Justice Theodore Boehm.

The justices also recognized that a stricter requirement of showing prejudice may produce unfair results and may need to be relaxed in situations, such as when a party had little time for discovery of matters largely known to its opponent. The Supreme Court then outlined items a court must consider to determine prejudice following a surprise consolidation.

The Supreme Court also examined another issue of first impression: Community's argument that Roberts can't claim surprise from consolidation because he submitted a proposed order to the court requesting relief on the merits. The 3rd and 7th Circuit appeals courts have addressed this issue and ruled a plaintiff had waived any objection to the timeliness of a notice because he had submitted a brief and a proposed order which "contemplated solely a final adjudication on the merits," wrote the justice.

"We prefer to resolve cases on the merits if in doubt, and we therefore find no waiver in this case but observe that Community's argument finds support in the foregoing federal authority," wrote Justice Boehm. "In the future, of course, parties should be mindful that a request for relief available only in a final judgment after a preliminary injunction hearing may invite consolidation under Trial Rule 65(A)(2) and waive any objection to lack of notice."

The Supreme Court affirmed the consolidation and entry of final judgment.

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. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT