sharla-c-williams-v-tradewinds-services-inc-board-of-directors-of ( 2015 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Aug 04 2015, 8:06 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as
precedent or cited before any court except for the
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES
Brenda J. Marcus Philip F. Cuevas
Merrillville, Indiana Litchfield Cavo LLP
Chicago, Illinois
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Sharla C. Williams, August 4, 2015
Appellant- Petitioner, Court of Appeals Cause No.
45A03-1406-CT-202
v.
Appeal from the Lake Superior
TradeWinds Services, Inc., Board Court
The Honorable William E. Davis,
of Directors of TradeWinds Judge
Services, Inc., Jon Gold in his Cause No. 45D05-1308-CT-152
individual capacity and official
capacity,
Appellees-Respondents,
Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision on Rehearing 45A03-1406-CT-202 | August 4, 2015 Page 1 of 10
Case Summary and Issue
[1] Sharla Williams has petitioned for rehearing of this court’s memorandum
decision in Williams v. TradeWinds Servs., Inc., No. 45A03-1406-CT-202 (Ind. Ct.
App., June 10, 2015). In that decision, we dismissed Williams’s appeal after
concluding that an untimely motion to correct error forfeited her right to appeal
under Indiana Appellate Rule 9(A)(1). Williams’s motion to correct error,
which was filed on March 24, 2014, was filed more than thirty days after the
trial court’s final judgment order, which was dated February 11, 2014.
However, Williams points out that the final judgment was not entered into the
Chronological Case Summary (“CCS”) until nearly two weeks later on
February 24, 2014.1 Under Indiana Appellate Rule 9(A)(1), it is the date of
entry in the CCS that determines whether Williams’s motion was timely.
Consequently, we agree that Williams’s motion to correct error was indeed
timely and that her right to appeal was not forfeited. We therefore grant
Williams’s petition for rehearing and address her claims on the merits.
[2] Williams appeals the trial court’s order granting summary judgment—and
eventual entry of final judgment—on a number of her claims against
TradeWinds Services, Inc., the TradeWinds Board of Directors, and Jon Gold
(collectively, “TradeWinds”). Williams also appeals two interlocutory orders,
1
We note that the Statement of the Case provided in Williams’s initial Appellant’s Brief states the operative
date of the trial court’s final judgment order as “February 11, 2014,” and Williams made no mention of a
later CCS entry on February 24, 2014. See Appellant’s Brief at 4.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision on Rehearing 45A03-1406-CT-202 | August 4, 2015 Page 2 of 10
which were a denial of her motion to file an amended complaint, and a denial
of her motion for preservation of evidence. Williams raises the following issues
for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred by treating TradeWinds’s
motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment after the parties
submitted materials outside of the pleadings; (2) whether the trial court erred by
directing the entry of final judgment on several of Williams’s claims; (3)
whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Williams’s motion to
amend her complaint; and (4) whether the trial court abused its discretion by
denying Williams’s motion for an order to preserve evidence. Concluding
Williams has failed to demonstrate that the trial court erred, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] We recounted the following facts and procedural history in our previous
opinion:
Williams began working for TradeWinds in 1999. In the fall of 2009,
TradeWinds became suspicious that Williams had improperly taken
money from a customer account and initiated an investigation of the
matter. In November 2009, Williams resigned from TradeWinds.
In March 2010, Williams was criminally charged with theft and
exploitation of a dependent, both Class D felonies. However, those
charges were later dismissed. Also in 2010, Williams filed an action
against TradeWinds in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana. A third amended complaint was filed in
that action, which alleged federal claims of race discrimination and sex
discrimination, in addition to a number of state law claims. On March
4, 2013, the district court dismissed Williams’s federal claims and
declined to retain jurisdiction over her state law claims.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision on Rehearing 45A03-1406-CT-202 | August 4, 2015 Page 3 of 10
On April 2, 2013, Williams commenced this action. Her complaint
consisted of eleven counts: (1) wrongful discharge; (2) intentional
interference with employment; (3) intentional infliction of emotional
distress; (4) negligence; (5) defamation; (6) defamation per se; (7)
intentional fraudulent misrepresentation; (8) false imprisonment; (9)
malicious prosecution; (10) malicious prosecution; and (11) breach of
duty. On May 20, 2013, TradeWinds filed a motion to dismiss
Williams’s complaint. On July 8, 2013, Williams filed both a motion
to amend her complaint and a memorandum in opposition to
TradeWinds’s motion to dismiss. On August 8, 2013, Williams filed
an amended memorandum in opposition of TradeWinds’s motion to
dismiss. In arguing the issues raised in TradeWinds’s motion to
dismiss, both parties submitted, referenced, and relied upon additional
exhibits outside the pleadings. On October 15, 2013, the trial court
issued an order on TradeWinds’s motion to dismiss; the trial court
noted that the motion was treated as one for summary judgment
because facts outside of the pleadings were presented for the trial
court’s consideration. The trial court granted summary judgment to
TradeWinds on Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 11. On the same day, the
trial court also issued an order denying Williams’s motion to amend
her complaint, stating that she failed to submit a proposed amended
complaint for the trial court’s review.
On November 22, 2013, the trial court denied a motion filed by
Williams seeking a court order for TradeWinds to preserve certain
documents that Williams believed were relevant for discovery
purposes. The Court denied Williams’s motion because Williams did
not previously seek to have the documents produced through
discovery.
On December 9, 2013, TradeWinds filed a motion requesting that the
trial court enter final judgment on the Counts for which the trial court
granted summary judgment. On February 11, 2014, the trial court
granted TradeWinds’s motion and entered final judgment pursuant to
Indiana Trial Rules 54(B) and 58. On March 24, 2014, Williams filed
a motion to correct error, which the trial court denied on May 9, 2014.
Williams, slip op. at 2-4. Additionally, on April 11, 2014, Williams filed
another motion to amend her complaint, seeking to reassert the same claims on
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision on Rehearing 45A03-1406-CT-202 | August 4, 2015 Page 4 of 10
which the trial court entered final judgment. On June 5, 2014, the trial court
denied her motion to amend.
Discussion and Decision
I. Motion to Dismiss Treated as Summary Judgment
[4] First, Williams challenges the trial court’s decision to treat TradeWinds’s
motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment. Specifically, Williams
contends she was not provided with adequate notice that the motion would be
treated as one for summary judgment.
[5] Regarding the treatment of a motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment,
Indiana Trial Rule 12(B) provides in pertinent part:
If, [on a motion under Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6)], matters outside
the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the
motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of
as provided in Rule 56. In such case, all parties shall be given
reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a
motion by Rule 56.
“The trial court’s failure to give explicit notice of its intended conversion of a
motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment is reversible error only if a
reasonable opportunity to respond is not afforded a party and the party is
thereby prejudiced.” Azhar v. Town of Fishers, 744 N.E.2d 947, 950 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2001) (citing Ayres v. Indian Heights Volunteer Fire Dep’t, 493 N.E.2d 1229,
1233 (Ind. 1986)).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision on Rehearing 45A03-1406-CT-202 | August 4, 2015 Page 5 of 10
[6] Here, both TradeWinds and Williams submitted materials outside the pleadings
and referenced those materials in their briefing on TradeWinds’s motion to
dismiss. Consequently, Williams was fully aware that the trial court was
considering materials outside the pleadings and was required by Trial Rule
12(B) to treat TradeWinds’s motion as one for summary judgment. Therefore,
the trial court did not commit reversible error.2
II. Entry of Final Judgment
[7] Second, Williams challenges the trial court’s decision to enter final judgment on
several claims pursuant to Trial Rule 54(B), which provides that the trial court
“may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of
the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just
reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.”
However, Williams’s argument on this point is restricted to a single sentence
alleging that TradeWinds requested entry of final judgment “to cut off the
plaintiff’s right to amend her complaint.” Appellant’s Brief at 18. Williams
offers no support for her allegation of bad faith, nor does she provide any
relevant legal analysis. Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8) requires a party’s brief
to support her contentions with cogent reasoning and citation to the record and
relevant legal authorities. Failure to comply with the requirements of the
2
Williams also argues on appeal that the trial court erred by denying her motion to correct error, restating
her claim that the trial court improperly ruled upon TradeWinds’s motion to dismiss as a motion for
summary judgment. For the same reason that the trial court’s conversion of TradeWinds’s motion was not
error, the trial court likewise did not commit error by denying Williams’s motion to correct error.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision on Rehearing 45A03-1406-CT-202 | August 4, 2015 Page 6 of 10
appellate rule results in forfeiture of an argument on appeal. Reed v. Reid, 980
N.E.2d 277, 296-97 (Ind. 2012). Williams has failed to properly develop her
challenge to the trial court’s entry of final judgment, and thus the issue is
forfeited.
III. Williams’s Motion to Amend Complaint
[8] Next, Williams contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying her
requests to amend her complaint. “The trial court has broad discretion when
deciding whether to permit amendments to pleadings.” Templin v. Fobes, 617
N.E.2d 541, 543 (Ind. 1993). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial
court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and
circumstances. Id. We consider several factors in determining whether a trial
court’s decision on a motion to amend is an abuse of discretion, including
“undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated
failure to cure deficiency by amendment previously allowed, undue prejudice to
the opposing party by virtue of the amendment, and futility of the amendment.”
Hilliard v. Jacobs, 927 N.E.2d 393, 398 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (citation omitted),
trans. denied.
[9] Frankly, Williams’s briefing on this issue is quite confusing, and it is not clear
on what basis she argues an amendment to her complaint should have been
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision on Rehearing 45A03-1406-CT-202 | August 4, 2015 Page 7 of 10
granted.3 At the outset, we observe that Williams did not have a right to amend
her complaint under Trial Rule 12(B), which provides that a “pleading may be
amended once as of right pursuant to Rule 15(A) within ten [10] days after
service of notice of the court’s order [of dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(B)(6).]”
Because TradeWinds’s motion to dismiss was properly treated as a motion for
summary judgment, Williams was not entitled to amend her complaint as a
matter of right. See Robbins v. Canterbury School, Inc., 811 N.E.2d 957, 960 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2004).
[10] As to Williams’s first attempt to amend her complaint, the trial court denied
that request after noting that Williams failed to include a proposed amended
complaint with her motion. At that point, the trial court had no reason to
believe that allowing Williams to amend her complaint would have an effect on
the validity of her claims. Thus, we cannot conclude that the trial court’s denial
of that motion was an abuse of discretion.
[11] Williams’s second motion to amend her complaint did not come until a full two
months after the trial court entered final judgment on the claims she sought to
amend. This court has previously said that after final judgment has been
entered on a claim, “there is nothing left to amend.” Leeper Elec. Servs., Inc. v.
3
Williams’s reply brief contains a section dubbed “Plaintiff is Entitled to Amendment of Her Complaint.”
Appellant’s Reply Br. at 3. But despite spanning a full thirteen pages of the brief, that section fails to include
a single sentence seemingly relevant to her motion to amend her complaint; instead, the section is a tirade of
incoherent accusations that TradeWinds has acted outrageously and engaged in vexatious litigation. Id. at 3-
16.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision on Rehearing 45A03-1406-CT-202 | August 4, 2015 Page 8 of 10
City of Carmel, 847 N.E.2d 227, 231 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied.
Additionally, Williams had four months after the entry of summary judgment
during which time she could have filed a motion to amend her complaint prior
to final judgment, but she did not. And even if the entry of final judgment did
not preclude amendment of Williams’s complaint, she has failed to carry her
burden on appeal that justice would require amendment and that the
amendment would not be futile. See Ind. Trial Rule 15(A); Hilliard, 927 N.E.2d
at 398. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying
Williams’s motion to amend her complaint.
IV. Motion to Preserve Evidence
[12] Finally, Williams argues the trial court erred by denying her motion for an
order to preserve evidence. The trial court denied her motion due to her failure
to previously seek production of the documents and to fulfill the requirements
set forth in Indiana Trial Rule 26(F).
[13] To the extent that Williams’s motion is related to the preservation of evidence
relevant to those counts on which the trial court entered final judgment, the
issue is moot because we have concluded the trial court did not abuse its
discretion by entering final judgment on those counts in favor of TradeWinds.
On the other hand, insofar as the motion relates to the preservation of evidence
relevant to Williams’s remaining claims, the trial court’s decision is an
interlocutory order over which this court does not presently have jurisdiction.
See Ind. Appellate Rule 5 and 14.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision on Rehearing 45A03-1406-CT-202 | August 4, 2015 Page 9 of 10
Conclusion
[14] We conclude the trial court did not err by treating TradeWinds’s motion to
dismiss as a motion for summary judgment; entering final judgment on several
of Williams’s claims; denying Williams’s motion to amend her complaint; or
denying Williams’s motion for an order to preserve evidence. Therefore, we
grant Williams’s petition for rehearing and affirm the trial court’s decision.
[15] Affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision on Rehearing 45A03-1406-CT-202 | August 4, 2015 Page 10 of 10