YTC Dream Homes, Inc. v. DirectBuy, Inc.
30 N.E.3d 701
Ind.
2015
Check Treatment

YTC DREAM HOMES, INC., et al., Appellants (Plaintiffs below), v. DIRECTBUY, INC., et al., Appellees (Defendants below).

No. 45S03-1505-PL-264.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

May 12, 2015.

18 N.E.3d 635

James F. Groves, South Bend, IN, Attorney for Appellants.

F. Joseph Jaskowiak, Lauren K. Kroeger, Merrillville, IN, Karl L. Mulvaney, Nana Quay-Smith, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

YTC Dream Homes, Inc. and several other franchisees (collectively, “YTC“) filed a contract-related action against franchisor DirectBuy, Inc. and related parties (collectively, “DirectBuy“) in Lake Superior Court. YTC, through its local counsel, filed a motion requesting temporary—or pro hac vice—admission of five out-of-state attorneys (the “Attorneys“) to represent YTC in the case. Each Attorney is licensed and in good standing in his or her respective state, and each has participated in a related federal case involving some of the same parties. None of the Attorneys has previously appeared by temporary admission in Indiana. After the trial court initially granted YTC‘s motion, DirectBuy objected, contending YTC‘s motion for the Attorneys’ admission “fails to comply with Rule 3 of the Indiana Rules for Admission to the Bar and the Discipline of Attorneys ... and also fails to comply with Lake County Local Rule 45-TR3.1-5(C).”1 Appellees’ App. at 19.

The trial court vacated its original order, held a hearing, and subsequently issued an order denying YTC‘s motion. The trial court concluded, in relevant part,

There is no doubt that the five [Attorneys] are eminently qualified, knowledgeable[,] and have a high level of competence in the area of franchise law.

* * * *

[But there are] no less than seventeen licensed Indiana attorneys ... that are members of the American Bar Association Forum on Franchising.

* * * *

Even assuming that the plaintiffs have shown good cause to admit these attorneys because of their specialized skills, the pro hac vice petitioner must overcome the presumption under Lake County Local Rule 5(C) that an attorney not licensed in Indiana is not permitted to practice before it. . . . [T]he Court is not persuaded that the plaintiffs cannot locate attorneys licensed in the State of Indiana that have expertise in the field of franchise law.

Appellants’ App. at 18 (Order 6, 8, 9).

The trial court certified its order for interlocutory appeal, which the Court of Appeals accepted. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court‘s order and remanded with instructions that the trial court grant the Attorneys’ petitions for temporary admission. . DirectBuy petitioned this Court for transfer, which we now grant. See Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A).

As the trial court correctly recognized, “temporary admission of an out-of-state lawyer pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 3(2) is within the discretion of the trial court.” (citing (per curiam)). See Admis. Disc. R. 3(2)(a). We agree with the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that Local Rule 5(C) does not create a presumption against pro hac vice admissions. . The local rule cannot vitiate the trial court‘s discretion to find good cause for temporary admission under Admission and Discipline Rule 3(2).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court with instructions to determine, without restriction by local rule and within the discretion granted by Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 3(2), whether good cause exists for the admission of the Attorneys. We summarily affirm that part of the Court of Appeals opinion addressing the meaning of the “good cause” requirements of Admission and Discipline Rule 3(2). See App. R. 58(A)(2).

All Justices concur.

SERENITY SPRINGS, INC., and Laura Ostergren, Appellants, v. LaPORTE COUNTY CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU, by and through its BOARD OF MANAGERS, Appellee.

No. 46S04-1505-MI-263.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

May 12, 2015.

Published Order

After the Court of Appeals issued its opinion in this case, Appellee filed a petition to transfer jurisdiction to the Supreme Court pursuant to Appellate Rule 57. Before the Court had ruled on the petition, the parties filed a Joint and Verified Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Appeal representing that they have reached a settlement of all claims and asking the Court to grant transfer and dismiss the appeal.

Being duly advised, the Court GRANTS the Joint and Verified Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Appeal and GRANTS the petition to transfer, thereby VACATING the Court of Appeals opinion at . See Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A). Having transferred jurisdiction, the Court DISMISSES the appeal.

All Justices concur.

Notes

1

Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 3(2)(a) provides in relevant part:

Any court of the State of Indiana, in the exercise of discretion, may permit a member of the bar of another state ... to appear in a particular case or proceeding, only if the court before which the attorney wishes to appear ... determines that there is good cause for such appearance [and that other specific conditions are met].

Lake County Rule of Civil Procedure 5(C) provides:

A person not a member of the Bar of the State of Indiana shall not generally be permitted to practice in the Civil Division of the Lake County Court System. The Court in its discretion may permit such counsel to appear only for a specifically limited purpose and time. Counsel‘s Motion shall strictly comply with Admission and Discipline Rule 3, and disclose such purpose, time, and all other cases in which the attorney or members of the firm have been permitted to appear in the State of Indiana.

LR45-TR3.1-5(C) (Feb. 2, 2015), available at: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/lake-local-rules.pdf.