Holmes v. Celadon Trucking Services of Indiana, Inc.
2010 Ind. App. LEXIS 2107
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Holmes was injured on April 25, 2007, while employed by Celadon, and his employment ended May 9, 2007.
- By April 24, 2009 Holmes, through counsel, prepared a complaint and mailed it to the Marion County Clerk via certified mail with filing fee and summons copies; delivery to the Clerk occurred April 28, 2009.
- Holmes’s attorney later mailed an appearance on May 8, 2009; the Clerk recorded filing of the complaint and counsel’s appearance on May 12, 2009.
- The applicable two-year statute of limitations expired no later than May 11, 2009.
- Celadon moved for judgment on the pleadings on February 1, 2010; the trial court granted it on June 3, 2010; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for partial summary judgment on timeliness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing occurred within the statutory period | Holmes commenced by mailing on April 24, 2009. | Commencement occurred May 12, 2009 when appearance was filed. | Holmes commenced within time; remand for partial summary judgment on timeliness. |
| Whether outside-pleadings convert the motion to summary judgment | Affidavits outside the pleadings support timely filing. | Records show late commencement. | Treat as summary judgment; standard remains same as for summary judgment. |
| Whether Trial Rule 3.1 appearance timing affects commencement for purposes of the statute of limitations | Delayed appearance does not affect commencement under Rule 3. | Appearance timing could affect commencement. | Delayed appearance does not defeat commencement under Rule 3 for statute purposes. |
| Whether the Marion County Clerk’s Chronological Case Summary controls | Mailing dates control commencement. | Clerk’s filing date controls commencement. | Mailing/receipt evidence shows timely commencement; Chronological Case Summary does not negate that. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wagle v. Henry, 679 N.E.2d 1002 (Ind.Ct.App. 1997) (treats 12(C) motion as summary judgment when outside materials are presented)
- Fox Dev., Inc. v. England, 837 N.E.2d 161 (Ind.Ct.App. 2005) (outside pleadings may be considered in summary-judgment analysis)
- Schmitter v. Fawley, 929 N.E.2d 859 (Ind.Ct.App. 2010) (summaries burdens and standards in summary judgment)
- KPMG, Peat Marwick, LLP v. Carmel Fin. Corp., 784 N.E.2d 1057 (Ind.Ct.App. 2003) (burden shifting in summary-judgment analysis)