« Courts - Still more on: Kentucky Judge Resigns Amid Accusations He Profited From Fen-Phen Case | Main | Ind. Decisions - Three today from the Court of Appeals »

Thursday, April 13, 2006

Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court posts one late yesterday, another today

In In the Matter of Anonymous, a 2-page per curiam opinion, the Court writes:

We require out-of-state attorneys who seek to appear in an Indiana court to file a motion for admission pro hac vice with the court, and within thirty (30) days after the court’s approval, to file a notice of admission along with the required admission fee with the Clerk of the Indiana Supreme Court. These rules concerning limited admission are designed to protect the public by determining that good cause exists for admission, that Indiana standards of professional responsibility will be observed, and that the attorney is in good standing in the jurisdiction where he or she is admitted to practice law. Failure to comply with these requirements may lead to the revocation of the opportunity to appear in Indiana courts or other sanctions.

In this attorney discipline case, the Disciplinary Commission has charged that the respondent attorney failed to register his admission pro hac vice with the Clerk of the Indiana Supreme Court and failed to pay his annual registration fee in violation of both Rule 3 § 2 of the Indiana Rules for Admission to the Bar and the Discipline of Attorneys and Rule 3.4(c) of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct (2004 & 2005). * * *

In accord with our acceptance of the parties’ agreement, the respondent shall be issued a private reprimand.

In Eddie Trail v. Boys and Girls Clubs of Northwest Indiana, an 18-page opinion (with Justice Rucker's dissent beginning on p. 14), Chief Justice Shepard writes:

Subsequent to a parting of ways with the Boys and Girls Clubs of Northwest Indiana, former executive director Eddie Trail sued the organization and a number of its board members. He alleged breach of contract, defamation, and tortious interference with an employment at will relationship. Because Trail failed to plead sufficient operative facts, and because certain of his claims have no basis in law, we conclude that the trial court was correct to dismiss. * * *

Conclusion. To survive a 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss of a tortious interference claim, the plaintiff must provide “at the very least a description of the tortious conduct.” Kiyose v. Trs. of Indiana Univ., 166 Ind. App. 34, 44, 333 N.E.2d 886, 891 (1975). In this case, Trail has failed to do so. Consequently, his claim for tortious interference was properly dismissed. We therefore affirm the decision of the trial court.

Sullivan and Boehm, JJ., concur.
Rucker, J., dissents with separate opinion in which Dickson, J., joins.

I respectfully dissent. The law is settled that a complaint may not be dismissed under Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted unless it appears to a certainty on the face of the complaint that the complaining party is not entitled to any relief. King v. S.B., 837 N.E.2d 965, 966 (Ind. 2005); City of New Haven v. Reichhart, 748 N.E.2d 374, 377 (Ind. 2001); Martin v. Shea, 463 N.E.2d 1092, 1093 (Ind. 1984). In ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the trial court is required to view the complaint in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party and with every reasonable inference in his favor. King, 837 N.E.2d at 966. The trial court may only look to the complaint, and well-pleaded material must be taken as admitted.

A Munster (NW Indiana) Times story today by Patrick Guinane reports:
A divided Indiana Supreme Court threw out a lawsuit brought by a former director of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Northwest Indiana who was fired four years ago.

Eddie Trail could not sufficiently support interference and defamation claims made against the nonprofit's board of directors, the high court ruled 3-2 Wednesday. The appellate court already had dismissed Trail's allegation of wrongful termination.

Wednesday's decision backs up an earlier dismissal from Lake County Superior Court.

"Because Trail failed to plead sufficient operative facts, and because certain of his claims have no basis in law, we conclude that the trial court was correct to dismiss," Chief Justice Randall Shepard wrote in a 12-page opinion. * * *


In a dissenting opinion, Justice Robert Rucker argued that Trail had proven defamation. Even though the report was shown to only a few employees, it still contained malicious comments about Trail that cost him a loss of earnings, Rucker said.

"The defendants should not be allowed on one hand to withhold the report, which apparently would reveal the specific contents of the alleged defamatory statements, and on the other hand complain" that Trail had made vague allegations, Rucker wrote.

Rucker also disagreed with the majority ruling on the interference claim.

He acknowledged that Trail's argument had its weaknesses, but that he should have been given more time to build his case.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 13, 2006 10:04 AM
Posted to Ind. Sup.Ct. Decisions