Opinion
23A-CT-2772
05-24-2024
Susan Vaughn and Gabrielle Ybarra, Appellants-Plaintiffs v. Melissa Bolen, Appellee-Defendant
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS Kimberly H. Danforth Samuel L. Jacobs Jacobs Law LLC Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Justin M. Wiser Travelers Staff Counsel Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Marion Superior Court The Honorable John M.T. Chavis, Judge The Honorable Ian L. Stewart, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 49D05-1809-CT-38344
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS
Kimberly H. Danforth
Samuel L. Jacobs
Jacobs Law LLC
Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Justin M. Wiser
Travelers Staff Counsel Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Judges Mathias and Weissmann concur.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Tavitas, Judge.
Case Summary
[¶1] The trial court dismissed a complaint filed by Susan Vaughn and her daughter, Gabrielle Ybarra (collectively "Appellants"), against Melissa Bolen after the parties failed to appear at the trial court's Trial Rule 41(E) dismissal hearing, which the trial court scheduled sua sponte based on perceived inactivity in the case. Four months later, Appellants filed a motion to reinstate the dismissed complaint and explained that they had, in fact, been prosecuting the case. The trial court, however, summarily denied the motion to reinstate.
[¶2] Appellants appeal and argue that the trial court abused its discretion both by dismissing the complaint and by denying the motion to reinstate. We conclude that Appellants' challenge to the dismissal of the complaint is forfeited because Appellants did not timely appeal the dismissal. We, however, conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to reinstate.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand.
Issues
[¶3] Appellants raise two issues on appeal, which we revise and restate as:
I. Whether Appellants' challenge to the trial court's dismissal of the complaint is forfeited.
II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to reinstate the dismissed complaint.
Facts
[¶4] On May 11, 2018, Appellants were involved in a car accident with Melissa Bolen. According to the complaint, Bolen rear-ended Appellants' vehicle, which resulted in significant injuries to Vaughn and less severe injuries to Ybarra. Appellants filed a complaint for damages against Bolen on September 25, 2018. At the time, Appellants were represented by Attorney Tess White. Bolen was initially represented by Attorney Matt Miller, an employee of Travelers Insurance Staff Counsel, and Bolen filed her answer on October 17, 2018.
According to Vaughn, Ybarra later reached the age of majority and pursued an individual action against Bolen.
[¶5] On January 5, 2019, Attorney White filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for Appellants and to stay discovery. On February 7, 2019, the trial court granted the motion to withdraw but denied the motion to stay discovery. Appellants were not represented by counsel again until April 16, 2019, when Attorneys Samuel Jacobs and Kimberly Danforth filed their appearances. During the period when Appellants were not represented, discovery did not progress, and Bolen filed a motion to dismiss Appellant's complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to Trial Rule 41(E). The trial court held a hearing on Bolen's motion to dismiss on April 30, 2019, and the trial court denied the motion. The trial court, however, ordered Appellants to respond to Bolen's discovery requests within ninety days.
[¶6] From July 2020 through January 2021, Bolen sent several discovery emails to Appellants' attorneys requesting that Ybarra sign a form to authorize the release of Ybarra's medical records. Appellants, however, did not provide this authorization. On February 5, 2021, Bolen filed a motion to compel the authorization, which the trial court granted. In the months following the motion to compel, several different attorneys were substituted as counsel for Bolen, and Bolen was ultimately represented by Attorney Justin Wiser.
[¶7] On May 12, 2023, the trial court sua sponte set a Trial Rule 41(E) dismissal hearing (the "dismissal hearing") for June 13, 2023, "[d]ue to inactivity" in the case. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 7. The Chronological Case Summary reflects that electronic notice of this hearing was sent to Appellants' counsel. According to Appellants, however, Appellants' counsel did not receive notice of this hearing.
[¶8] On June 9, 2023, the parties took Vaughn's deposition. According to Appellants, the parties had been discussing settlement and the possibility of mediation around this time as well. The trial court held the dismissal hearing on June 13, 2023; however, none of the parties or attorneys appeared at the hearing. After calling the parties' names and hearing no response, the trial court summarily dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
[¶9] Four months later, on October 20, 2023, Appellants filed a motion to reinstate the dismissed complaint. The motion alleged the following: (1) counsel was unaware of the trial court's dismissal hearing, and "[n]one of the parties' attorneys ha[d] any explanation why they were unaware of the [hearing], or why the hearing date was not scheduled upon calendars"; (2) due to the "amount of [Vaughn's] medical treatment" and Bolen's substitutions of counsel, Bolen's counsel "required a significant amount of added time" to review documents, which delayed discovery; (3) after discussing settlement, the parties agreed in March 2023 to take Vaughn's deposition on June 9, 2023, and Vaughn's deposition was taken on this date; and (4) Attorney Danforth discovered that the case was dismissed when she checked the trial court's online docket. Id. at 12-13. Appellants, thus, argued that the complaint should be reinstated because the parties were unaware of the dismissal hearing and were "moving the case" before the hearing. Id. at 13. Bolen did not oppose the motion. On October 23, 2023, however, the trial court summarily denied the motion to reinstate. Appellants now appeal.
Discussion and Decision
[¶10] Appellants argue that the trial court abused its discretion both by dismissing the complaint and by denying the motion to reinstate the complaint. We first conclude that Appellants' challenge to the dismissal of the complaint is forfeited. The only issue that remains is whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to reinstate the dismissed complaint. We conclude that the trial court did abuse its discretion by denying this motion.
I. Appellants' challenge to the dismissal of the complaint is forfeited
[¶11] We first conclude that Appellants' challenge to the dismissal of the complaint is forfeited. Discussing the forfeiture of an appeal, this Court has explained:
In order to initiate an appeal, a party must file a Notice of Appeal "within thirty (30) days after the entry of a Final Judgment is noted in the Chronological Case Summary." Ind. Appellate Rule 9(A)(1). The failure to timely file a Notice of Appeal results in forfeiture of the appeal. Ind. Appellate Rule 9(A)(5). Although the right to appeal is forfeited, the failure to timely file a Notice of Appeal does not deprive our court of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. In re Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965, 971 (Ind. 2014). Rather, the forfeited right may be restored for "extraordinarily compelling reasons." Id.Estate of Mills-McGoffney v. Modesitt, 78 N.E.3d 700, 704-05 (Ind.Ct.App. 2017). When a party fails to timely appeal the dismissal of the complaint and instead files a motion to reinstate the dismissed complaint, a subsequent appeal "will pertain solely to whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying or granting the motion to reinstate." Id. at 705.
[¶12] Here, the trial court dismissed Appellants' complaint on June 13, 2023, and this dismissal was a final appealable order. Id. Appellants did not file an appeal within thirty days of the dismissal. Rather, Appellants filed a motion to reinstate the dismissed complaint on October 20, 2023, which the trial court denied. Appellants then filed this appeal on November 22, 2023.
[¶13] Because Appellants did not file this appeal within thirty days of the dismissal of the complaint, pursuant to Appellate Rule 9(A)(5), any challenge to the dismissal is forfeited. Id. Appellants' timely appeal of the denial of the motion to reinstate the dismissed complaint does not resurrect the forfeited appeal of the dismissal itself. See id. Appellants also do not direct us to any "'extraordinarily compelling reasons'" that support reinstating the appeal. Id. (quoting O.R., 16 N.E.3d at 971). Accordingly, we do not address Appellants' challenge to the dismissal of the complaint.
II. The trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to reinstate the dismissed complaint
[¶14] Although we have concluded that Appellant's challenge to the dismissal of the complaint is forfeited, we nonetheless conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to reinstate the dismissed complaint. The trial court dismissed the complaint pursuant to Trial Rule 41(E), which provides:
Whenever there has been a failure to comply with these rules or when no action has been taken in a civil case for a period of sixty [60] days, the court, on motion of a party or on its own motion shall order a hearing for the purpose of dismissing such case. The court shall enter an order of dismissal at plaintiff's costs if the plaintiff shall not show sufficient cause at or before such hearing....
[¶15] Trial courts balance several factors when determining whether to dismiss a complaint pursuant to Trial Rule 41(E). Those factors include: "(1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the degree of personal responsibility on the part of the plaintiff; (4) the degree to which the plaintiff will be charged for the acts of his attorney; (5) the amount of prejudice to the defendant caused by the delay; (6) the presence or absence of a lengthy history of having deliberately proceeded in a dilatory fashion; (7) the existence and effectiveness of sanctions less drastic than dismissal which fulfill the purposes of the rules and the desire to avoid court congestion; (8) the desirability of deciding the case on the merits; and (9) the extent to which the plaintiff has been stirred into action by a threat of dismissal as opposed to diligence on the plaintiff's part." Belcaster v. Miller, 785 N.E.2d 1164, 1167 (Ind.Ct.App. 2003) (citing Lee v. Friedman, 637 N.E.2d 1318, 1320 (Ind.Ct.App. 1994)), trans. denied. "'The weight any particular factor has in a particular case appears to depend upon the facts of that case.'" Id. (citing Lee, 637 N.E.2d at 1320).
[¶16] A trial court may reinstate a dismissed complaint pursuant to Trial Rule 41(F), which provides, in relevant part: "For good cause shown and within a reasonable time the court may set aside a dismissal without prejudice." Reinstatement pursuant to Trial Rule 41(F) "is extraordinary relief." Smith v. Franklin Township Cmty. Sch. Corp., 151 N.E.3d 271, 273 (Ind. 2020). We review the denial of a motion to reinstate for abuse of discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision misinterprets the law or clearly contravenes the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id.
[¶17] Here, we conclude that Appellant's have shown good cause to reinstate the complaint. The trial court scheduled the June 2023 dismissal hearing sua sponte pursuant to Trial Rule 41(E) based on perceived "inactivity" in the case. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 7. Appellants, however, had been negotiating settlement with Bolen, and the parties took Vaughn's deposition several days before the trial court's dismissal hearing. Thus, Appellants were, in fact, prosecuting the case and were working to resolve the case outside of court. Moreover, Appellants were unaware of the dismissal hearing, so they were not "stirred into action by a threat of dismissal ...." Belcaster, 785 N.E.2d at 1167.
[¶18] The trial court dismissed Appellants' complaint without prejudice. Appellants then filed a motion to reinstate on October 20, 2023, in which Appellants informed the trial court that they had been prosecuting the case. Significantly, the motion to reinstate was not opposed by Bolen. The trial court, however, summarily denied this motion.
[¶19] On appeal, Bolen does not identify any prejudice resulting from delays in the case. Although Bolen argues that Appellants were untimely in providing Ybarra's authorization for the release of medical records, this was resolved by the ruling on Bolen's motion to compel. Bolen's repeated substitutions of counsel, the severity of Vaughn's injuries, and the Covid-19 pandemic also contributed to delays. Under the facts of this case, we conclude that Appellant's have shown good cause to reinstate the dismissed complaint and that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to reinstate.
Conclusion
[¶20] Appellants' challenge to the dismissal of the complaint is forfeited. The trial court, however, abused its discretion by denying the motion to reinstate the dismissed complaint. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
[¶21] Reversed and remanded.
Mathias, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.