Keller J. Mellowitz v. Ball State University, 221 N.E.3d 1214

Spring 2020: Ball State moved all in-person instruction and services online in response to COVID-19 executive orders; students (including Keller Mellowitz) had paid tuition and mandatory fees.
May 1, 2020: Mellowitz sued Ball State for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, seeking tuition/fee recovery and to represent a class of similarly situated students.
April 29, 2021: Indiana enacted Pub. L. No. 166-2021 (retroactive to March 1, 2020), including I.C. § 34-12-5-7, which bars class actions against covered entities for contract or unjust enrichment claims arising from COVID-19.
Ball State moved under Trial Rule 23(D)(4) to require Mellowitz to amend his complaint to eliminate class allegations; the trial court granted the motion but allowed Mellowitz to pursue his individual claims.
Court of Appeals reversed, finding the statute conflicted with Trial Rule 23; Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and affirmed the trial court, upholding the statute as constitutional.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Separation of powers — Legislature may not override court rules governing class actions	Section 7 improperly usurps the judiciary by displacing Trial Rule 23 and governing class procedures	Section 7 is a valid legislative enactment that predominantly furthers public policy (limit pandemic liability), not judicial administration	Statute is constitutional under Church framework: it predominantly furthers public policy and does not impermissibly usurp judicial power
Takings — retroactive elimination of class action is an uncompensated taking of a vested cause of action	Retroactive ban takes away an accrued cause of action/property (class remedy) without just compensation	No property right in the procedural device of a class action; underlying individual claims remain	No taking: a class action is a procedural device, not a vested property right; Mellowitz can still pursue individual claims
Contracts Clause — statute impairs contractual obligations between student and university	Barring class relief substantially impairs contract enforcement and thus the contract itself	Section 7 does not alter Ball State’s contractual obligations to individual students and leaves individual remedies intact	No unconstitutional impairment: contractual rights between Mellowitz and Ball State remain enforceable via individual suit

Church v. State, 189 N.E.3d 580 (Ind. 2022) (announces predominant-purpose test for determining whether statute is substantive or procedural)
Cheatham v. Pohle, 789 N.E.2d 467 (Ind. 2003) (accrued causes of action may qualify as property for takings analysis)
Guthrie v. Wilson, 162 N.E.2d 79 (Ind. 1959) (statute shortening limitations may be treated prospectively to avoid subverting vested rights)
Bonney v. Ind. Fin. Auth., 849 N.E.2d 473 (Ind. 2006) (Public Lawsuit Statute as example where legislature imposed class-procedural rules to protect public projects)
Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 582 U.S. 23 (2017) (order striking class allegations is functionally equivalent to denial of class certification)
Creative Montessori Learning Ctrs. v. Ashford Gear LLC, 662 F.3d 913 (7th Cir. 2011) (class certification can create coercive settlement pressure due to magnitude of potential damages)