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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT