The case involved the Estate of Sonja Eiteljorg suing Harrison Eiteljorg II and Jack M. Eiteljorg for breach of contract arising from a 2001 settlement agreement that resolved disputes over the administration of the Harrison Eiteljorg Revocable Trust and related estate matters, including provisions for mutual releases and potential payments triggered by litigation. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and 12(b)(7) for failure to join a necessary party. The court denied dismissal on jurisdiction grounds, holding that diversity jurisdiction was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2) based on the decedent's citizenship, and denied dismissal on joinder grounds after applying Rule 19(b) factors, noting the trust's assets had already been distributed. However, the court granted dismissal without prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6), finding the complaint deficient, and allowed the Estate 45 days to amend.

procedurepropertyfamily law

In Hughes v. Chattem, Inc., plaintiffs brought a class action alleging that the defendant's Dexatrim weight-loss supplement contained undisclosed hexavalent chromium, in violation of marketing claims implying safety, and asserted claims under the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, intentional misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief after purchasing the product. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint without prejudice pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The reasoning centered on plaintiffs' failure to allege any actual injury or harm from product use, lack of plausible facts showing deception in the label or website materials, absence of standing due to no concrete injury, and the unavailability of unjust enrichment where consumers received the benefit of their bargain in ordinary transactions.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a student with autism spectrum disorder and related disabilities, along with his parents, who sued the Evansville-Vanderburgh School Corporation alleging that the school failed to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) through inadequate evaluations, individualized education programs (IEPs), and placements including homebound instruction. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion and granted the defendants' motion, entering judgment for the school. The core reasoning was that the school's psychological evaluations, case conference committee meetings, IEPs, and continuum of services complied with IDEA requirements and were reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit, even as the student's needs evolved over time.

civil rights

This case involved a challenge by plaintiffs to two provisions of Indiana's Senate Enrolled Act 590, which was set to take effect in 2011. Section 19 authorized state and local law enforcement to make warrantless arrests based on federal immigration removal orders, detainers, or probable cause of aggravated felonies, while Section 18 created a state infraction for knowingly offering or accepting consular identification cards as valid ID. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, halting enforcement of both sections pending a full ruling on their constitutionality. The core reasoning was that the provisions attempted to regulate immigration, an area of exclusive federal authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and that they conflicted with federal preemption principles as well as Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable seizures.

immigrationcriminal lawfederal power

This case involves a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit brought by Shannon McComas, a former Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officer, against Detective Edward Brickley for false arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment, stemming from McComas's arrest in connection with a fatal shooting at Durty Nelly's bar on January 1, 2008, after which charges against him were dropped. The court addressed Defendant Brickley's motion for summary judgment, which argued that probable cause existed for the arrest based on witness statements and other evidence available to the detective. The court denied the motion, holding that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether probable cause existed when the facts known to Detective Brickley at the time of the arrest—including statements from witnesses like Norman Broaden and Ramierez Hayes—were viewed in the light most favorable to McComas. The decision focused on the specific information the detective possessed and rejected additional arguments raised only in reply briefs as untimely or unsupported.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involves Plaintiff Joseph Worley suing the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles Commissioner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for declaratory and injunctive relief after repeated denials of a photo ID or driver's license. Worley alleges that a name mismatch between his birth certificate and social security records has created an impasse preventing him from obtaining identification needed to vote, marry, legally change his name, or adopt a child, in violation of his substantive and procedural due process rights. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), concluding that the factual allegations sufficiently state plausible claims for relief.

civil rightsprocedureelections

This case involved plaintiff Penny Mathews's claims against her former employer, Bronger Masonry, Inc., for unpaid overtime wages related to accrued personal and vacation time as well as an unpaid portion of her salary, brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Indiana Wage Payment Statute. Following a bench trial, the court found the defendant liable to the plaintiff for $676.92 plus reasonable attorney fees under the Indiana statute for the unpaid salary claim. The court determined that the plaintiff was an exempt administrative employee under the FLSA and thus not entitled to overtime pay, based on her salary basis, duties involving discretion in office management and accounting tasks, and the company's lack of an actual practice of improper salary deductions. The ruling rejected the overtime claims while holding the employer accountable for the salary shortfall under state law.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case is a civil action by the United States to collect unpaid federal employment taxes withheld from employees of Downtown Collision, LLC, an auto-body repair shop, under 26 U.S.C. § 6672, which imposes a 100% penalty on responsible persons who willfully fail to remit such taxes. A default judgment was entered against one defendant and a consent judgment against another, while the United States moved for summary judgment against the remaining defendant, Mark A. Ratliff, who admitted liability for some assessments but contested others. The court granted the motion for summary judgment, holding that Ratliff was a responsible person due to his ownership interest, management role, and authority over finances, and that he acted willfully by directing or allowing the use of withheld taxes to pay other creditors despite awareness of the obligations. The decision rested on the presumption of correctness attached to the IRS assessments, which Ratliff failed to rebut with evidence showing he lacked significant control or willfulness.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

In Lewis v. McCracken, plaintiff John Lewis, a pastor leading public demonstrations against perceived sins including those at the French Lick Resort Casino, staged a protest on a sidewalk at the intersection of public roads and the resort entrance. Defendants, including the resort's security director and the local police chief, informed Lewis that the sidewalk was private property and threatened him with arrest for trespass unless he relocated across the street, prompting Lewis to move while asserting it was a traditional public forum protected by the First Amendment. Lewis sued claiming a violation of his free speech rights, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment along with related motions including one to strike portions of Lewis's affidavit. The court analyzed the sidewalk's ownership status, noting it fell within a planned public right-of-way not yet transferred to the town at the time, and addressed evidentiary issues by granting the motion to strike legal conclusions in the affidavit while denying it as to factual statements about prior public use and access. Core reasoning focused on whether the location qualified as a public forum and the justiciability of the claim based on the threat of arrest chilling protected activity.

free speechreligious libertycivil rightsproperty

The case involved plaintiff Tamara Hine suing her former employer, Extremity Imaging Partners, Inc., alleging a hostile work environment from sexual harassment by her supervisor and retaliation leading to her termination. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The reasoning centered on the supervisor's comments and conduct not being severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment, with no evidence linking the termination to any rejection of advances rather than issues with the plaintiff's time reports and marketing plan.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case concerns Roche Diagnostics Corporation's motion for a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo while arbitrating claims that Medical Automation Systems, Inc. (MAS) and its officers breached a contractual right of first refusal under their 2006 Co-Marketing Agreement by pursuing a merger with Alere, Inc. instead of allowing Roche to purchase MAS. Roche had sought to block the merger closing via temporary restraining orders, which the court had previously granted and extended. After a hearing with evidence and argument on the agreement's terms, including confidentiality, exclusivity, and wind-down provisions, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The ruling rested on an evaluation of the parties' contractual obligations, the timing and validity of notices of non-renewal, and the need for expedited relief pending arbitration.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Rose Acre Farms seeking a declaratory judgment that its insurers, Columbia Casualty Company and National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford, had a duty to defend it under commercial general liability policies in underlying antitrust class actions alleging a conspiracy to fix egg prices. The policies provided coverage for 'personal and advertising injury' arising from the use of another's advertising idea in the insured's advertisement, but excluded coverage for injuries caused by knowing violations or criminal acts. The court denied Rose Acre's motion for partial summary judgment and granted the insurers' cross-motion, holding that the underlying complaints alleged only a price-fixing conspiracy without any claims tied to Rose Acre's use of advertising ideas, and therefore the alleged conduct did not fall within the policy's coverage for personal and advertising injury.

business & regulatory

This case involves plaintiff Paul Jackson's claim that defendant Allstate Insurance acted in bad faith when handling his underinsured motorist claim under an auto policy after a 2001 car accident with an underinsured driver. Allstate had paid the policy limits from the other driver's insurer plus its own medical payments coverage but denied additional uninsured motorist benefits, citing that Jackson was not legally entitled to further recovery. The court granted Allstate's motion for summary judgment on the bad faith claim, finding no genuine issues of material fact because the insurer's investigation, delay in handling, settlement offers, and explanations for denial were based on a reasonable interpretation of policy language and available evidence, even if not perfect. The breach of contract claim remains for trial.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved a Mazda dealership and its officers suing the manufacturer for breaches of contract, bad faith, fraud, deceptive practices under the Indiana Deceptive Franchise Practices Act, and punitive damages, stemming from disputes over allegedly discriminatory vehicle allocation methods (including a regional pool and DM commitments) and the manufacturer's refusal to approve acquisition of another dealership. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion for summary judgment. Core reasoning focused on the Dealer Agreement's allocation provisions, evidence of discretionary practices creating factual disputes on some contract and fraud claims, lack of evidence or legal support for others (such as certain bad faith or constructive fraud elements), and application of statutes of frauds and limitations periods to bar additional counts.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves two female employees at Rolls-Royce who brought individual claims of gender discrimination under the Equal Pay Act and Title VII after their request for class certification was denied, alleging disparate treatment and impact in salary, merit increases, and eligibility for bonus programs. The district court addressed the company's two summary judgment motions by first outlining the employer's compensation system, which sets salary ranges by job level and control point using market surveys, performance reviews, and managerial discretion for adjustments. The court concluded that one plaintiff's disparate pay claim was not barred as untimely under the applicable limitations periods and Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and that evidence regarding comparators and bonus participation raised triable issues for certain claims, while rejecting others for lack of proof on key elements such as decision-maker knowledge. Core reasoning centered on whether genuine disputes of material fact existed under the direct and indirect methods of proof and whether alleged practices constituted independently actionable discrimination.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case concerns allegations by the Greater Indianapolis NAACP chapter and individual members of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police and Fire Departments that the departments' promotion criteria and procedures discriminate against African-Americans. The City moved for partial judgment on the pleadings, seeking dismissal of most claims on grounds including the NAACP's lack of associational standing, failure to exhaust administrative remedies for Title VII claims, improper pursuit of damages under state constitutional provisions, and deficiencies in pleading disparate impact and other claims under Title VII, §1981, §1983, and the ADEA. Applying the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard and the Hunt requirements for associational standing, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing certain claims such as those for damages under state law, some Title VII disparate impact claims, and specific individual claims, while permitting others to proceed.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a dispute between CDW, a large technology products and services company, and its smaller competitor NETech. CDW sought a preliminary injunction after NETech recruited several CDW employees from its Indianapolis branch, including a branch manager who helped solicit others while sharing customer lists, project details, and other confidential information in violation of their employment agreements containing non-compete and confidentiality clauses. The court granted the motion, enjoining NETech from using CDW's trade secrets, soliciting CDW customers or recent employees, and engaging in related competitive activities. The decision rested on findings that CDW was likely to succeed on claims including breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets, that CDW faced irreparable harm from loss of goodwill and confidential information, and that the balance of harms and public interest favored injunctive relief.

business & regulatorylabor & employmenttorts & liability

The case concerned claims by U.S. Automatic Sprinkler Co. against Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Co. and Ferguson Fire & Fabrication, Inc. for breaches of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, arising from leaks in commercial fire sprinkler systems installed in 2003 using defendants' components. The U.S. District Court granted both defendants' motions for summary judgment. The court reasoned that U.S. Automatic failed to show a genuine issue of material fact supporting liability, as its own installation methods contributed to the leaks without using required tools or torque measurements, and Ferguson had no successor liability under Indiana law in this commercial context not involving personal injury.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved Eli Lilly suing generic manufacturers Sicor (now Teva Parenteral) and Teva for patent infringement after they filed ANDAs seeking FDA approval to market generic gemcitabine (Gemzar) before expiration of Lilly's patents. Lilly asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 4,808,614 (covering the gemcitabine compound) and 5,464,826 (covering its use in treating neoplasms). Following a bench trial on validity, enforceability, and infringement, the court held that the '614 patent is valid, enforceable, and infringed by defendants' proposed products; the '826 patent is valid and enforceable except that Lilly is collaterally estopped from defending obviousness-type double patenting claims due to a prior ruling in another case. The decision rested on findings that defendants failed to prove anticipation, obviousness, or lack of enablement for the asserted claims, while noting the patents' disclosures and secondary considerations of non-obviousness.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

In Mink v. Barth Electric Co., Inc., plaintiff Christina Mink, a former union electrician and apprentice at the defendant electrical contractor, sued her employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging sex discrimination in the form of a hostile work environment and retaliation for complaining about the conduct. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court reasoned that much of the complained-of conduct by the foreman (such as pinching and assigning errands) was inflicted on both male and female employees alike and thus was not based on sex, that Mink failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation or that working conditions were so intolerable as to constitute constructive discharge, and that the employer had responded appropriately to her complaints.

labor & employmentcivil rights