ILNews

Venue transfer hinges on type of organization

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a motion to change venues because the Indiana High School Athletic Association didn't meet its burden as a governmental organization needed under Indiana Trial Rule 75 to affirm the motion. The opinion also tackled the issue of how to define the IHSAA for purposes of the trial rule.

In Indiana High School Athletic Association, Inc. v. Angel Garcia, No. 45A03-0706-CV-290, the IHSAA appealed the trial court's denial of its motion to transfer venue from Lake County to Marion County. Garcia transferred to East Chicago High School from another school where he played varsity sports and wanted to play varsity basketball. The IHSAA granted him only limited eligibility to play for a period of 365 days from the date of his enrollment at the school.

Garcia filed a complaint against IHSAA, which included seeking a temporary restraining order and a declaratory judgment allowing him to fully participate in varsity athletics at East Chicago. The trial court issued the temporary injunction against the IHSAA and a temporary restraining order. The IHSAA filed a counterclaim and motion to transfer to Marion County. After hearing arguments on the motion to transfer, the trial court denied the motion.

Judge Michael Barnes wrote in the opinion that no prior cases have determined whether IHSAA is a "defendant organization" or a "governmental organization" for purposes of Indiana Trial Rule 75. Defining the IHSAA as one would determine whether it had grounds to ask for transfer of venue. If a complaint is filed in a county of preferred venue, the trial court doesn't have the authority to transfer the case based solely on the preferred venue in one or more other counties.

The IHSAA asserts because it is a Marion County-based not-for-profit corporation, the preferred venue is in Marion County, according to Indiana Trial Rule 75(a)(4). Garcia argues the IHSAA should be considered a "governmental organization" pursuant to the trial rule, leaving Lake County as a preferred venue.

In order to rule on the issue, the court turned to previous Indiana Supreme Court rulings on the issue - Indiana High School Athletic Association v. Carlberg, 694 N.E.2d 222 (Ind. 1997) and Indiana High School Athletic Association v. Reyes, 694 n.E.2d 249 (Ind. 1997). In those cases, the Supreme Court issued principles to be followed in reviewing cases involving the IHSAA, including common law "will treat the IHSAA as analogous to a government agency with respect to challenges to its rules and enforcement actions brought by students and other non-IHSAA members with standing to do so."

The Carlberg court likened IHSAA decisions to government agency decisions and determined an arbitrary and capricious standard of review was proper, Judge Barnes wrote. If the IHSAA is a "state actor" for purposes of students' constitutional rights, then it can be concluded it is also a "governmental organization" for purposes of Indiana Trial Rule 75. It would also be unfair to force students to litigate adverse rulings of the IHSAA in Marion County.

The IHSAA did not meet its burden of proof so the burden did not shift to Garcia to show that Lake County was a county of preferred venue.

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