Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowIndiana Court of Appeals
Ed Carpenter Racing, LLC v. Milton “Todd” Ault, III, and VForward2, LLC
No. 25A-CC-2721
Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, Judge Kurt Eisgruber. Ed Carpenter Racing, LLC appeals the dismissal of its complaint for damages against Milton “Todd” Ault, III, and VForward2, LLC. The court affirms the dismissal of the complaint against Ault for lack of personal jurisdiction but reverses the dismissal with prejudice, remanding for a dismissal without prejudice. The court finds Ed Carpenter Racing failed to establish personal jurisdiction over Ault. In addition, the court upholds the dismissal against VForward2 for failure to state a claim, allowing Ed Carpenter Racing an opportunity to amend its complaint. Senior Judge Crone authored the opinion, and Judges Mathias and Pyle concur. Appellant’s attorney: Richard B. Kaufman, Indianapolis, Indiana. Appellees’ attorneys: Jeffrey M. Heinzmann, Heinzmann Law Office LLC, Fishers, Indiana; and Robert B. Volynsky, Weltz Kakos Gerbi Wolinetz Volynsky LLP, Carle Place, New York.
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Clayton W. Creason v. Elanco US Inc.
No. 25-1552
Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Richard L. Young. Before Circuit Judges Easterbrook, Kirsch and Kolar. This case involves Clayton Creason’s appeal against Elanco U.S. regarding alleged unpaid wages tied to a vacation-buy program. Creason contended that Indiana law necessitated a formal assignment of wages, which he claimed was not met by Elanco’s vacation buy program. The district court found that the vacation buy arrangement did not constitute an “assignment” of wages and ruled that Creason failed to demonstrate his entitlement to additional compensation for unused vacation hours post-employment. The court also noted procedural delays on Creason’s part regarding remand under class action stipulations, ultimately affirming the decision. Judge Easterbrook authored the opinion. There were no noted concurrences or dissents.
This content was created with the assistance of artificial intelligence and has been reviewed by an editor for accuracy.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.