Denna Delacruz and Barry Barger v. Paul Wittig
42 N.E.3d 557
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- On July 4, 2012, Deputies Delacruz and Barger investigated a disturbance at a party; they allege Paul Wittig assaulted them and they arrested him at the scene.
- The Deputies sued Wittig in June 2014 for injuries sustained during the incident; Wittig answered and in September 2014 asserted a § 1983 counterclaim alleging excessive force during his arrest.
- Wittig’s counterclaim sought compensatory/consequential damages, attorney fees, and a setoff against any recovery to the Deputies.
- The Deputies moved to dismiss the counterclaim as barred by Indiana’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims; the trial court denied dismissal and certified for interlocutory appeal.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo whether the counterclaim was time-barred and whether Trial Rule 13(J) salvaged it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wittig) | Defendant's Argument (Deputies) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wittig’s § 1983 counterclaim is time‑barred | Counterclaim accrued at incident but Trial Rule 13(J) rescues it despite being filed after two years | Counterclaim accrued on date of incident and is barred by 2‑year limitations | Counterclaim is time‑barred; dismissal required |
| Whether the counterclaim is compulsory (same transaction) | Counters arose from same occurrence as Deputies’ complaint | Same — but characterization affects Rule 13(J) relief | Counterclaim is compulsory (same aggregate of operative facts) |
| Whether counterclaim is recoupment/setoff (salvageable) or affirmative relief | Counterclaim will diminish or defeat Deputies’ recovery, thus qualifies under 13(J) | Counterclaim seeks affirmative relief (compensatory damages, fees) and is not mere recoupment | Court finds counterclaim is affirmative, not recoupment; 13(J) does not rescue it |
| Whether Trial Rule 13(J) tolls or salvages an otherwise time‑barred affirmative counterclaim | 13(J) applies to save the claim | 13(J) only salvages recoupment/setoff counterclaims; statutes of limitation control | 13(J) does not toll for affirmative counterclaims; statutes of limitation govern strictly |
Key Cases Cited
- Snodderly v. R.U.F.F. Drug Enforcement Task Force, 239 F.3d 892 (7th Cir. 2001) (§ 1983 claims are governed by state personal‑injury limitations period)
- Crivaro v. Rader, 469 N.E.2d 1184 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984) (Trial Rule 13 does not toll statutes of limitation for affirmative counterclaims)
- Bacompt Sys., Inc. v. Ashworth, 752 N.E.2d 140 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (broad definition of "transaction or occurrence" as aggregate of operative facts)
- Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue v. Estate of Daugherty, 938 N.E.2d 315 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2010) (affirming that Trial Rule 13 does not extend limitations for affirmative counterclaims)
- Lei Shi v. Cecilia Yi, 921 N.E.2d 31 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (standard of review for T.R. 12(B)(6) de novo)