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. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  2. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT