Staples The Office Superstore, Inc. and Zhejiang Haoguo Furniture Co. v. Gary Wright, M.D. (mem. dec.), 49A05-1705-CT-1118

Wright was injured May 1, 2012, when his Staples chair collapsed after purchase in July 2010.
Wright sued Staples and Haoguo in Feb. 2014; Haoguo served Oct. 2014.
Staples believed Haoguo manufactured the chair and Haoguo indemnified Staples; communications via Haoguo’s insurer.
Default judgment against Staples and Haoguo entered March 2, 2016; damages awarded April 14, 2016.
Staples filed Trial Rule 60(B) motions in July 2016 (subd. (1) and (8)); later pursued a Motion to Correct Error and a second Rule 60(B) motion; the latter was denied May 1, 2017, leading to the appeal filed May 25, 2017.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of appeal	Staples timely appealed the second Rule 60(B) denial.	Wright argues appeal was untimely tied to the deemed denial for the motion to correct error.	Timely; appeal commenced after denial of Staples’ second Rule 60(B) motion.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the second Rule 60(B) motion	Second motion raised new grounds not included in the first motion.	Court properly denied relief due to rehashing of issues already known.	No abuse of discretion; additional grounds were known at time of first motion and not reviewable.

Siebert Oxidermo, Inc. v. Shields, 446 N.E.2d 332 (Ind. 1983) (repeated Rule 60(B) motions not allowed; grounds must be new or unknown)
Carvey v. Ind. Nat’l Bank, 176 Ind. App. 152, 374 N.E.2d 1173 (Ind. Ct. App. 1978) (limits on successive Rule 60 motions)
Seleme v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 982 N.E.2d 299 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (standard of review for Rule 60(B) rulings is abuse of discretion)
Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC v. Holmes, 885 N.E.2d 1265 (Ind. 2008) (abuse of discretion standard for Rule 60(B) rulings)
In re Paternity of P.S.S., 934 N.E.2d 737 (Ind. 2010) (appellate review framework for post-judgment relief)