Benjamin S. Smith v. Franklin Township Community School Corporation, 151 N.E.3d 271

In January 2016 Benjamin Smith (then 17) was injured when his vehicle was rear-ended by a Franklin Township school bus; he informed the district months later that he intended to file a claim but did not sue for over two years.
The Claims Against Public Schools Act (CAPSA) took effect in 2018 and requires pre-suit notice to a school; failure to provide notice before filing mandates dismissal without prejudice.
Smith filed suit in October 2018, nine days before the statute of limitations would run; the School moved to dismiss for failure to provide CAPSA notice.
Smith did not file a response to the motion to dismiss; he filed a settlement-demand letter and a later-filed notice, which the School and the court found insufficient, and the trial court dismissed the complaint without prejudice pursuant to CAPSA.
Smith did not timely appeal the dismissal. Two months later he filed three Trial Rule 41(F) pleadings over six weeks seeking reinstatement; his final filing for the first time attacked the legal basis of the dismissal.
The trial court denied reinstatement; the Court of Appeals reversed, but the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, vacated the Court of Appeals decision, and affirmed the trial court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a T.R. 41(F) motion may be used to collaterally attack the merits of a dismissal	Smith argued the trial court misinterpreted law (improper dismissal) and that constituted good cause for reinstatement	School argued Smith forfeited those legal challenges by not timely appealing and cannot use T.R. 41(F) to relitigate merits	Court held Rule 41(F) cannot be used to collaterally attack dismissal; such arguments must be preserved via timely appeal
Whether Smith satisfied T.R. 41(F) requirements of filing within a reasonable time and showing good cause	Smith claimed reinstatement was proper due to legal error and unsuccessful post-dismissal settlement negotiations	School argued Smith’s Rule 41(F) filings were untimely and did not show good cause but instead sought to relitigate known issues	Court held Smith failed both prongs: his delay and substance showed no reasonable time or good cause; denial was not an abuse of discretion
Whether expiration of the statute of limitations (making dismissal effectively terminal) constitutes good cause for reinstatement	Smith argued the dismissal’s practical prejudice (SOL expiry) justified reinstatement	School contended SOL expiration does not create automatic good cause for extraordinary relief	Court agreed with School: SOL expiration alone is not sufficient good cause for reinstatement under T.R. 41(F)

Polk-King v. Discover Bank, 120 N.E.3d 1051 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (reinstatement is extraordinary relief; SOL expiration does not automatically constitute good cause)
DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. v. Brown, 29 N.E.3d 729 (Ind. 2015) (defines abuse of discretion standard)
Natare Corp. v. Cardinal Accounts, Inc., 874 N.E.2d 1055 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (motions to reinstate are extraordinary and not a substitute for appeal)
State ex rel. Peoples Nat’l Bank & Tr. Co. of Washington v. Dubois Circuit Court, 233 N.E.2d 177 (Ind. 1968) (a reinstatement motion is not a substitute for a direct appeal)
In re Paternity of P.S.S., 934 N.E.2d 737 (Ind. 2010) (similar principle applied in T.R. 60(B) context regarding timeliness and available remedies)
Kindred v. Townsend, 4 N.E.3d 793 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (parties cannot use collateral motions to relitigate known errors)
Smith v. Franklin Twp. Cmty. Sch. Corp., 136 N.E.3d 615 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (Court of Appeals decision reversing trial court’s denial of reinstatement, later vacated on transfer)