24 N.E.3d 435
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- Boyer and Richard (former owners of Alternative Plastics, Inc.) were sued in federal court by Ernest Smith for discrimination; Ernest later dismissed his claims against Boyer and Richard after disclosing a Social Security Administration disability determination.
- The federal district court denied Boyer and Richard’s request for attorneys’ fees, finding Ernest’s claims were arguable and not frivolous at filing.
- Boyer and Richard then sued Ernest and his attorney, Suzanne Cassidy, in Dearborn County, Indiana, asserting frivolous lawsuit, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, fraud, constructive fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Ernest and Cassidy, reasoning it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, lacked personal jurisdiction over Cassidy, and that claims were barred by res judicata.
- On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals reviewed (1) whether summary judgment was proper and (2) Cassidy’s cross-appeal request for appellate attorney’s fees for a frivolous appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Boyer & Richard) | Defendant's Argument (Ernest / Cassidy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction | Dearborn Superior Court had power to hear tort claims arising from the federal suit | Trial court found events occurred in Kentucky and questioned jurisdiction | Court: Trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction (Indiana courts of general jurisdiction; Alford Trust inapplicable) – but affirmed only insofar as court had authority to hear tort claims |
| Personal jurisdiction over Cassidy | Cassidy’s litigation-related contacts with Indiana (calls, correspondence with Indiana counsel/EEOC, deposition in Indiana) subjected her to suit in Indiana | Cassidy argued lack of personal jurisdiction and preserved that defense in her answer | Court: Personal jurisdiction exists; Cassidy’s representation produced sufficient forum contacts to satisfy due process |
| Res judicata (claim preclusion) | All tort claims are precluded because the federal court rejected fee request and found the suit non-frivolous | Ernest/Cassidy rely on the federal court’s determination to bar relitigation | Court: Federal judgment bars only the frivolous-lawsuit claim; malicious prosecution, abuse of process, fraud, constructive fraud, and IIED were not or could not have been decided previously and are not precluded |
| Cross-appeal: Cassidy’s request for attorneys’ fees on appeal | Cassidy seeks fees because the state suit/appeal is frivolous | Boyer & Richard oppose fee award | Court: Denied fees — appeal not frivolous because part of trial-court summary judgment was reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Pfenning v. Lineman, 947 N.E.2d 392 (Ind. 2011) (standard for reviewing summary judgment)
- LinkAmerica Corp. v. Cox, 857 N.E.2d 961 (Ind. 2006) (Trial Rule 4.4 contacts checklist and personal jurisdiction analysis)
- Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014) (jurisdictional contacts must be defendant’s contacts with the forum state)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) (general jurisdiction requires continuous and systematic contacts)
- MicroVote Gen. Corp. v. Ind. Election Comm’n, 924 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (elements of claim preclusion)
- Crosson v. Berry, 829 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (denial of fees in one action does not bar later malicious-prosecution claim)