ILNews

Despite out-of-court agreement, COA upholds motion to strike

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals encourages collegiality among attorneys when it comes to resolving issues outside of court, but it had to uphold the striking of documents because they were not timely filed with the trial court. The parties’ attorneys agreed to an extension of time to reply outside of court, but the trial court had no choice but to not allow the late reply.

In Mary Booher, et al. v. Sheeram, LLC, No. 20A03-1005-CT-338, Mary and Steve Booher sued Hampton Inn of Elkhart after Mary slipped in a bathtub and injured herself. The hotel had received earlier complaints that the tubs were slippery and coated the tubs with a non-skid surface, but that didn’t cover the entire bottom of the tubs. The coating did comply with safety standards.

The Boohers filed a negligence suit and requested through the courts and received two extensions of times to reply to Hampton Inn’s motion for summary judgment. After their second extension, their deadline to reply was Nov. 7, 2008.

But the Boohers’ expert needed more time to get his report together and was going to be out of the country until Nov. 7. The Boohers’ attorney also was preparing for major surgery on Oct. 24 and would be away for two weeks. The attorney’s legal assistant spoke with Hampton Inn’s attorney, who agreed to a three-week extension, but the Boohers never filed a formal request for an extension with the trial court. They submitted their material designation of facts and other documents Nov. 26.

Hampton Inn then filed a motion to strike, which the trial court granted based on Trial Rule 56. It later granted summary judgment for Hampton Inn.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the motion to strike based on the bright line rule set forth by the Indiana Supreme Court, which says a trial court “may exercise discretion and alter time limits under 56(I) only if the nonmoving party has responded or sought an extension within thirty days from the date the moving party filed for summary judgment.”

Chief Judge John Baker wrote that the appellate court encourages collegiality to solve issues outside of the courtroom, but in circumstances as what occurred in the instant case, parties must still seek formal relief directly from the trial court.

“We acknowledge, as did the trial court, that the Boohers’ attorney was working under extraordinarily difficult circumstances—an expert who was out of the country and unable to complete his report in a timely fashion together with a major surgery endured by counsel certainly constituted cause to extend the deadline by three more weeks,” he wrote. “Our proverbial hands are tied, however, inasmuch as our Supreme Court has made it clear that the trial court simply had no discretion to accept the untimely filed documents, regardless of the circumstances.”

The Court of Appeals also affirmed summary judgment for Hampton Inn because the Boohers failed to show Hampton Inn breached its duty to them.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • The Defense Lawyer's Fraudulent Conduct Rewarded
    My issue with this ruling is that the trial court struck the filing as a result of defense counsel filing a Motion to Strike after the agreement. Doing so rewards fraudulent conduct by an officer of the court. Had the court struck the filing "sui sponte", I would have no issue with the ruling.

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT