Kimberly Smee v. Zachary Johnson, individually and as an agent of Northern Ag Services, Inc., and Northern Ag Services, Inc. (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 9, 2016
• Docket: 64A03-1511-CT-1904
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Dec 09 2016, 8:36 am

regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES Andrew M. Yoder Eric M. Blume Law Office of Andrew M. Yoder Larry L. Barnard Hobart, Indiana Carson Boxberger LLP Fort Wayne, Indiana Benjamen W. Murphy Griffith, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Kimberly Smee, December 9, 2016 Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No. 64A03-1511-CT-1904 v. Appeal from the Porter Superior Court Zachary Johnson, individually The Honorable Mary R. Harper, and as an agent of Northern Ag Judge Services, Inc., and Northern Ag Trial Court Cause No. Services, Inc., 64D05-1109-CT-8594 Appellees-Defendants

Baker, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A03-1511-CT-1904 | December 9, 2016 Page 1 of 5 [1] Kimberly Smee appeals the trial court’s order dismissing her complaint against

Zachary Johnson and Northern Ag Services, Inc. (Northern), for failure to

prosecute. Finding no error, we affirm.

Facts [2] On September 3, 2009, a motor vehicle accident occurred between Smee and

Johnson, who was driving a vehicle in the course of his employment with

Northern. On September 6, 2011, Smee filed a complaint against Johnson and

Northern, seeking compensation for injuries she allegedly sustained as a result

of the accident. Smee attempted to serve Johnson and Northern with

summonses and the complaint in September and October 2011, but service was

unsuccessful.

[3] Between May 3, 2012, and July 3, 2014, Smee’s attorney was engaged in

settlement negotiations with a representative of the insurer for Johnson and

Northern. There is no evidence that counsel was ever in direct contact with

either Johnson or Northern. After negotiations broke down, Smee finally

served Johnson on August 28, 2014, and Northern on September 17, 2014. On

October 6, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for

failure to prosecute pursuant to Trial Rule 41(E). The trial court granted the

motion on September 30, 2015, and Smee now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [4] Smee argues that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to

prosecute. We will reverse a dismissal for failure to prosecute only if the trial

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A03-1511-CT-1904 | December 9, 2016 Page 2 of 5 court’s decision is against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances

before it. Lee v. Pugh, 811 N.E.2d 881, 884-85 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). We will

affirm a dismissal for failure to prosecute if there is any evidence supporting the

trial court’s order. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of Am. v.

Merchandising Equip. Grp., 963 N.E.2d 602, 606 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).

[5] Indiana Trial Rule 41(E) provides as follows: “Whenever there has been a

failure to comply with these rules or when no action has been taken in a civil

case for a period of sixty (60) days, the court, on motion of a party or on its own

motion shall order a hearing for the purpose of dismissing such case. The court

shall enter an order of dismissal at plaintiff’s costs if the plaintiff shall not show

sufficient cause at or before such hearing.” The purpose of this rule is to ensure

that plaintiffs will diligently pursue their claims. United Brotherhood, 963 N.E.2d

at 606. The burden of moving the litigation is on the plaintiff. Id.

[6] Smee acknowledges the lapse of nearly three years between the filing of the

complaint and the dates on which she perfected service on the defendants. But

she argues that the act of finally perfecting service constituted the resumption of

diligent prosecution of the complaint. See State v. McClaine, 261 Ind. 60, 63, 300

N.E.2d 342, 344 (1973) (holding that a motion to dismiss for failure to

prosecute should be denied if plaintiff resumes diligent prosecution prior to the

filing of the motion to dismiss). We disagree, concurring with the analysis of

another panel of this Court on this issue:

Full application of the McClaine rule would preclude using T.R. 41(E) as a mechanism for dismissal when T.R. 4 service of Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A03-1511-CT-1904 | December 9, 2016 Page 3 of 5 process has not been made with due diligence. Not until summons is finally served does a defendant have reason to file a T.R. 41(E) motion. At the same time plaintiff might be deemed to have resumed prosecution by effecting the service, thereby precluding a timely T.R. 41(E) motion to dismiss. However, we hold the McClaine rule inapplicable when a cause of action is filed but summons is not served because of undue delay and lack of diligence without cause. In such a case, a party may timely move for a dismissal under T.R. 41(E) after prosecution has been resumed. To hold otherwise would be inherently unfair to the party who has no knowledge of the pending claim. Thus we conclude the trial rules require a party to exercise due diligence in securing service of process and the remedy for failure to use diligence is not a retrospective determination the statute of limitations was not tolled, but a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute under T.R. 41(E).

Geiger & Peters, Inc. v. Am. Fletcher Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 428 N.E.2d 1279, 1283

(Ind. Ct. App. 1981) (emphasis added). We agree with the Geiger Court’s

analysis, and decline to apply the McClaine rule to this situation.1

[7] Smee argues that we should not apply the Geiger analysis here because the

defendants knew of the lawsuit. We disagree, as there is no evidence in the

record supporting that assertion. The mere fact that Smee’s attorney was in

touch with the defendants’ insurer in no way establishes that either Johnson or

Northern had any knowledge of the complaint.

1 Smee contends that the Geiger analysis was dicta. Whether or not that is true, we believe that the analysis is sound and echo it here today.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A03-1511-CT-1904 | December 9, 2016 Page 4 of 5 [8] In sum, we find that the mere act of perfecting service did not constitute a

resumption of diligent prosecution. The trial court did not err by dismissing for

failure to prosecute where nearly three years passed between the filing of the

complaint and the perfection of service on the defendants.

[9] Smee also contends, essentially, that the sixty-day timeframe in Trial Rule

41(E) should be tolled because her attorney was involved in negotiations with

the defendants’ insurer. We do not find this argument compelling. Our

Supreme Court has held that while defendants may be estopped from asserting

a timeliness defense if they induce the plaintiff to allow the statutory period to

expire, simple openness to negotiations is insufficient. Paramo v. Edwards, 563

N.E.2d 595, 599 (Ind. 1990). Instead, the defendant’s conduct must lull the

plaintiff into inaction. Id.

[10] In this case, there is no evidence that Johnson or Northern were parties to the

negotiations or had any knowledge whatsoever that the lawsuit was pending.

Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record that the insurer told Smee’s

attorney that resolution was likely or imminent, nor is there evidence that the

insurer stated it would excuse Smee’s failure to diligently attempt to perfect

service on Johnson and Northern. Consequently, we decline to reverse on this

basis.

[11] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

May, J., and Brown, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A03-1511-CT-1904 | December 9, 2016 Page 5 of 5