JK HARRIS & CO., LLC v. Sandlin
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 102
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Sandlin obtained a default judgment against JK Harris in Marion Superior Court and moved to certify a class under Trial Rule 23.
- JK Harris failed to answer; it was found in contempt and its Indiana offices were padlocked after show-cause proceedings.
- Sandlin sought damages for himself and the class; JK Harris later argued arbitration as sole remedy and moved to set aside judgments and certifications.
- The trial court granted default judgment and certified a plaintiff class defining Indiana residents who paid JK Harris for tax resolution but did not receive relief.
- JK Harris appealed denial of TR60(B) relief, denial to set aside arbitration, and denial to set aside class certification; this court affirmed in part and remanded for a more precise class definition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TR60(B) relief was properly denied | Sandlin argues default relief was proper due to adequate notice and lack of excusable neglect. | JK Harris contends lack of notice and equitable grounds justify relief under TR60(B)(1) and(TR60(B)(8)). | No abuse; notice adequate and no extraordinary circumstances shown. |
| Whether arbitration clause requires dismissal and arbitration | Sandlin contends waiver of arbitration rights due to JK Harris’s participation level. | JK Harris asserts contract requires binding arbitration and court should compel arbitration. | Waiver of arbitration rights occurred; court did not compel arbitration. |
| Whether class certification was properly denied or should be set aside | Sandlin asserts Rule 23 prerequisites were met and default judgment allows review of certification. | JK Harris argues insufficient allegations and that certification should be revisited or set aside. | No abuse; class certification affirmed and remanded for more precise definition. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Paternity of P.S.S., 934 N.E.2d 737 (Ind. 2010) (TR60(B) relief requires equitable discretion)
- In re Marriage of Jones, 389 N.E.2d 338 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979) (discretionary review framework for appeals)
- Core Funding Group, LLC v. Young, 792 N.E.2d 547 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (default judgment does not preclude class-cert analysis; rigorous analysis possible without defendant participation)
- Independence Hill Conservancy Dist. v. Sterley, 666 N.E.2d 978 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (class definition must be specific enough to identify members)
- Tamko Roofing Products, Inc. v. Dilloway, 865 N.E.2d 1074 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (waiver of arbitration rights may be inferred from conduct)