Kay Kim and Charles Chuang v. Village at Eagle Creek Homeowners Association, Inc. and Muhammed Javed and Andleeb Javed ( 2019 )

FILED
Oct 17 2019, 8:45 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
APPELLANTS PRO SE ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Kay Kim VILLAGE AT EAGLE CREEK
Charles Chuang HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,
Indianapolis, Indiana INC.
David E. Jacuk
Tanner Law Group
Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES
MUHAMMED JAVED AND
ANDLEEB JAVED
Steven St. John
Skiles DeTrude
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Kay Kim and Charles Chuang, October 17, 2019
Appellants-Plaintiffs, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-SC-970
v. Appeal from the
Marion County Small Claims
Village at Eagle Creek Court
Homeowners Association, Inc. The Honorable
and Muhammed Javed and A. Douglas Stephens, Judge
Andleeb Javed, Trial Court Cause No.
Appellees-Defendants. 49K05-1811-SC-4090
Kirsch, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-SC-970 | October 17, 2019 Page 1 of 7
[1] Kay Kim and Charles Chuang (together, “Plaintiffs”) appeal the small claims
court’s order dismissing their small claims action against the Village at Eagle
Creek Homeowners Association, Inc. (“VEC”) and Muhammed Javed and
Andleeb Javed. The Plaintiffs raise several issues for our review, which we
restate and consolidate as: whether the small claims court erred when it
dismissed Plaintiffs’ small claims action with prejudice for failure to attend
mediation.
[2] We reverse and remand.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] This case arises from an incident in which Plaintiffs’ dogs were allegedly bitten
by another dog in the outside common area of their condominium complex.
The dog that allegedly bit their dogs was owned by tenants of a unit in the
complex. On November 7, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a small claims action against
VEC, seeking damages for the treatment sought for their dogs. Appellants’ App.
Vol. II at 22. On December 13, 2018, VEC filed a motion to dismiss. Id. at 14.
Plaintiffs opposed the motion and later added Muhammed Javed and Andleeb
Javed (“the Javeds”), the owners of the unit where the dog that allegedly bit
their dogs resided, thus making VEC and the Javeds defendants (collectively,
“Defendants”). Id. at 14-16.
[4] On December 28, 2018, the small claims court denied VEC’s motion to dismiss
and ordered the parties to alternative dispute resolution, which included
mediation or arbitration. Appellees’ App. Vol. 2 at 2. On January 28, 2019, the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-SC-970 | October 17, 2019 Page 2 of 7
small claims court provided a panel of four mediators, from which the parties
were to each strike one. Id. at 5. After the small claims court had provided this
list, Plaintiffs filed their own list of mediators, which was stricken by the small
claims court the same day. Appellants’ App. Vol. II at 19, 82-83. Despite being
ordered to participate in mediation, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary
judgment on February 25, 2019, which was stricken by the small claims court.
Id. at 19.
[5] After the parties each struck a mediator from the panel provided by the small
claims court, Mark Matheny (“Matheny”) was the remaining proposed
mediator and was appointed to the case on February 28, 2019. Id. On March
13, 2019, Matheny contacted the parties to obtain a date for mediation and
explained his fee schedule. Id. at 91. He explained that his fee was $200 per
hour which was to be split equally between the parties and that a retainer of
$300 was to be paid by both sides. Id. Shortly after receiving Matheny’s email,
Plaintiffs responded that the mediation fee of $200 per hour was to be split
among the three parties and that Plaintiffs’ portion of the fee should not exceed
more than $70. Id. at 92. Plaintiffs further informed Matheny that their
demand of $591 plus court costs and mediation costs was not negotiable and
“will not change.” Id. Twenty-one minutes later, Plaintiffs emailed Matheny,
again reiterating their position and stating that they would not pay more than
$70 for mediation and that they would walk out of mediation within the first
half hour. Id. at 93. Three minutes after this second email, Plaintiffs emailed
Matheny, informing him that they would bring two checks of $35 to the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-SC-970 | October 17, 2019 Page 3 of 7
mediation so that one check could be given back after a half hour of mediation.
Id.
[6] On March 18, 2019, Matheny filed a “Report of Mediator and Resignation of
Mediator” with the small claims court. Id. at 94. In the report, Matheny stated
that “Plaintiff, Kay Kim, has indicated that she would not be participating in
the mediation under the terms set forth in the mediator’s Agreement to
Mediate.” Id. He further informed the court that due to the correspondence
between Plaintiffs and himself, he felt that he was “now in an adversarial
relationship with the Plaintiff[s] and can no longer act as mediator in this cause
of action and would tender his resignation as mediator.” Id. Matheny
additionally stated that “no mediation ha[d] taken place, no mediation ha[d]
been scheduled, nor ha[d] the parties agreed to the terms of mediation at this
point.” Id.
[7] On March 20, 2019, the small claims court sua sponte set a Rule to Show Cause
hearing and ordered Plaintiffs to appear and show cause as to why they should
not be held in contempt for failing to attend mediation; if Plaintiffs failed to
appear and show good cause, the action could be dismissed. Appellees’ App. Vol.
2 at 7-8. Plaintiffs filed an answer to the Rule to Show Cause order and, for the
first time, requested a pro bono mediator be appointed. Appellants’ App. Vol. II
at 98. On April 26, 2019, the parties appeared at the Rule to Show Cause
hearing, and the small claims court heard evidence. At the conclusion of the
hearing, the small claims court issued an order dismissing Plaintiffs’ case with
prejudice, finding that Plaintiffs “refuse to attend court-ordered mediation” and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-SC-970 | October 17, 2019 Page 4 of 7
that Plaintiffs “want to set the cost of mediator and indicate they will not
change [their] position.” Id. at 8. Plaintiffs now appeal.
Discussion and Decision
[8] Plaintiffs argue that the small claims court erred when it dismissed their action
against Defendants with prejudice based on Plaintiffs’ refusal to attend
mediation. Because the small claims court’s decision was not in Plaintiffs’
favor, they are appealing from a negative judgment. On appeal, we will not
reverse a negative judgment unless it is contrary to law. Johnson v. Blue Chip
Casino, LLC, 110 N.E.3d 375, 378 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (citing LTL Truck Serv.,
LLC v. Safeguard, Inc., 817 N.E.2d 664, 667 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004)), trans. denied.
In determining whether a judgment is contrary to law, we consider the evidence
in the light most favorable to the appellee, together with all the reasonable
inferences to be drawn therefrom. Id. A judgment will be reversed only if the
evidence leads to but one conclusion, and the trial court reached the opposite
conclusion. Id.[9] The small claims court dismissed Plaintiffs’ case after finding that Plaintiffs
“refuse to attend court-ordered mediation” and that Plaintiffs “want to set the
cost of mediator and indicate they will not change [their] position.” Appellants’
App. Vol. II at 8. However, although the small claims court ordered the parties
to alternative dispute resolution, including mediation or arbitration, and the
Plaintiffs failed to comply with mediation, pursuant to the Indiana Rules for
Alternative Dispute Resolution, they are not applicable to small claims court
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-SC-970 | October 17, 2019 Page 5 of 7
cases. Indiana Rule for Alternative Dispute Resolution 1.4 states, “[t]hese rules
shall apply in all civil and domestic relations litigation filed in all Circuit,
Superior, County, Municipal, and Probate Courts in the state.” The Marion
County small claims courts are not included in this rule; therefore, cases filed in
these courts are not subject to the rules, and the parties in these cases cannot be
ordered to alternative dispute resolution, including mediation or arbitration. In
the present case, therefore, contrary to the order by the small claims court, the
parties could not be ordered to mediation.1
[10] Under Indiana Small Claims Rules, the “sole objective” of the informal
proceedings is “dispensing speedy justice between the parties according to the
rules of substantive law” and the proceedings “shall not be bound by the
statutory provisions or rules of practice, procedure, pleadings or evidence . . . .”
Ind. Small Claims Rule 8(A). We find that the inapplicability of the Indiana
Alternative Dispute Rules to small claims cases furthers this objective in that
barring alternative dispute resolution streamlines the small claims procedure
and brings about “speedy justice between the parties.” Id. Because the Indiana
Alternative Dispute Rules are not applicable to small claims cases in Marion
County, we find that the small claims court in the present case erred when it
1
Although we hold that parties cannot be ordered to participate in alternative dispute resolution in Marion
County small claims proceedings, our holding does not bar parties in those small claims proceedings from
being compelled to participate in alternative dispute resolution when they have contracted to be subject to
such processes.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-SC-970 | October 17, 2019 Page 6 of 7
dismissed Plaintiffs’ case for refusing to attend mediation. We, therefore,
reverse the small claims court’s dismissal and remand for further proceedings.
[11] Reversed and remanded.
Baker, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-SC-970 | October 17, 2019 Page 7 of 7