• Menu
  • Skip to left header navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

(317) 639-4511

  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

Harrison Moberly LLP

Law Firm in Indianapolis, IN

  • HOME
  • PRACTICE AREAS
    • Appellate Law
    • Bankruptcy & Debtor-Creditor Relations
    • Business Services
    • Construction Law
    • Employment Law
    • Environmental
    • Estate Planning, Wealth Transfer and Tax
    • Family Law
    • Insurance Services
    • Law Practice Succession Planning
    • Litigation Services
    • Mediation Roundtable LLC and Alternative Dispute Resolution
    • Real Estate
    • Tax Controversy and Dispute Resolution
  • ATTORNEYS
    • A-K
      • Lisa M. Adler
      • Thaddeus R. Ailes
      • Stephen E. Arthur
      • Ashley A. Butz
      • Raeanna Carrell
      • William “Jay” Hancock
      • Natalie Hatfield
      • Lee L. Heyde
      • Don Hopper
    • L – Z
      • Patricia Polis McCrory
      • James J. McGrath
      • Tamie Jo Morog
      • Rory O’Bryan
      • Chad E. Oswald
      • Mark W. Pfeiffer
      • Fred D. Scott
      • Martha T. Starkey
      • David J. Theising
  • NEWS, EVENTS, & BLOGS
  • BILL PAY
  • LOCATIONS
  • Attorneys
    • A – K
      • Lisa M. Adler
      • Thaddeus R. Ailes
      • Stephen E. Arthur
      • Ashley A. Butz
      • Raeanna Carrell
      • William “Jay” Hancock
      • Natalie Hatfield
      • Lee L. Heyde
      • Don Hopper
    • L – Z
      • Patricia Polis McCrory
      • James J. McGrath
      • Tamie Jo Morog
      • Rory O’Bryan
      • Chad E. Oswald
      • Mark W. Pfeiffer
      • Fred D. Scott
      • Martha T. Starkey
      • David J. Theising
  • Practice Areas
    • Appellate Law
    • Bankruptcy & Debtor-Creditor Relations
    • Business Services
    • Construction Law
    • Employment Law
    • Environmental
    • Estate Planning, Wealth Transfer and Tax
    • Family Law
    • Insurance Services
    • Law Practice Succession Planning
    • Litigation Services
    • Mediation Roundtable LLC and Alternative Dispute Resolution
    • Real Estate
    • Tax Controversy and Dispute Resolution
  • Bill Pay
  • Locations
  • (317) 639-4511

INDIANA CASE LAW UPDATE: Merging Merits Trial With Preliminary Injunction

February 4, 2009 //  by Stephen Arthur




Merging Merits Trial With Preliminary Injunction

Stephen E. Arthur

 

Trial Rule 65(A)(2) permits a trial court to advance and consolidate a trial on the merits with a preliminary injunction hearing.  The court may order consolidation before or after commencement of the injunction hearing.  Not expressly addressed in the rule is whether the trial court must provide notice of consolidation to the parties, and, if notice is not given, what is the consequence.

This problem is significant, especially where the injunction hearing is conducted shortly after the lawsuit is filed, the parties have had little opportunity to conduct discovery, and the court does not announce its intention to consolidate under the hearing has concluded.

Trial Rule 65(A)(2) also does not address whether a party may waive error in a trial court’s failure to provide notice of consolidation, especially if the moving party asks the court to grant final judgment-type relief, such as money damages.  The Indiana Supreme Court examined both of these issues in John C. Roberts v. Community Hospitals of Indiana, Inc., 897 N.E.2d 458 (Ind. 2008).

Roberts, a physician, sued Community Hospitals, claiming a breach of Roberts’ residency contract.  Roberts requested a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction reinstating him as a resident of Community Hospitals.  The trial court denied the request for temporary restraining order and set a hearing on the request for preliminary injunction to be held two months later.  The preliminary injunction hearing lasted eight hours and involved the admission of several documents and testimony of several doctors, including Roberts.  The trial court asked the parties to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.  In response, Roberts submitted a proposed order that requested not only a preliminary injunction but also asked for specific performance and monetary damages.  Thereafter, the trial court advanced and consolidated the application for preliminary injunction with the final judgment.  Roberts filed a Motion to Correct Error, which contained an affidavit by Roberts’ counsel stating that, had notice of consolidation been provided, Roberts would have engaged in further discovery, retained an expert, and called additional witnesses at trial.  The Motion to Correct Error was denied and, on transfer, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court. 

In an opinion authored by Justice Boehm, the Supreme Court affirmed that Trial Rule 65(A)(2) is intended to promote judicial efficiency by permitting a trial court to consolidate proceedings where to do so will avoid the repetition of evidence in multiple proceedings.  The Court referenced a number of Indiana cases which hold that the trial court must provide parties with adequate notice of consolidation.  Notwithstanding this requirement, the court concluded that consolidation without notice will not constitute reversible error absent a showing of prejudice.  Prejudice requires something more than a party’s statement that it might have presented more evidence had it received advance notice of consolidation.  “Bare assertions that discovery was incomplete or witnesses were not called will not suffice, at least where, as here, there was time for significant discovery.”  Id. at 466.  Rather, the party opposing consolidation must identify evidence specifically, which, if admitted, could reasonable change the outcome on the merits.  Alternatively, the party may demonstrate why available evidence was not accessible and could not be presented at the injunction hearing.          

The Supreme Court identified five factors a court must consider in deciding whether prejudice exists: (1) the scope of the issues in the case, (2) the opportunity that the parties have had for discovery, (3) the degree to which continuance and discovery requests have been honored, (4) the extent to which the parties litigated the merits of the case at the preliminary injunction hearing, and/or (5) the realistic ability of the trial court to render judgment using the testimony and evidence elicited at the preliminary injunction hearing.  The court noted that the case for relaxing these prejudice requirements may be stronger where the opponent of the consolidation is also the party who opposed injunctive relief.

Finally, the court examined the extent to which a party may waive a failure of notice, even where prejudice is established under the standard adopted in the Roberts case, by requesting final judgment or non-injunctive-type relief.  Although the court found no waiver in the conduct of Roberts, it clearly admonished the Indiana bar to be careful when requesting relief during or after the preliminary injunction hearing.  “[P]arties should be mindful that a request for relief available only in a final judgment after a preliminary injunction hearing may invite consolidation under Trial Rule 65(A)(2) and waive any objection to lack of notice.” Id. at 469.

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

Stephen Arthur is a partner with Harrison & Moberly, LLP (

www.harrisonmoberly.com)

, in Indianapolis, and concentrating his practice in federal and state business and tort litigation. He is the author of Indiana Civil Trial Practice, published by West Publishing, and co-author of Professor Harvey’s Indiana Rules of

Procedure Annotated.  Paul Carroll assisted with this review. The opinions and analysis expressed in this column are those of the author.

 

 

You May Also Be Interested In:

Estate Planning Considerations for New Parents

David Theising to Speak at 2021 Annual Meeting of ABA Forum on Construction Law in New York City

Execute Documents Remotely

Parenting Time During Governor Holcomb’s Stay at Home Order

Estate Planning During Coronavirus & Social Distancing

Virtual Estate Services

Estate Administration During Coronavirus & Social Distancing

Harrison & Moberly proudly sponsors 2019 APABA-IN Central Regional Conference

Hopper Appointed as Member of the Probate Code Study Commission

Previous Post: « International Symposium on the Role of African Higher Education in Sustainable Community Development: The Case for African University
Next Post: INDIANA CASE LAW UPDATE: Proper Use Of Peremptory Challenges In Jury Trials »

Primary Sidebar

Twitter

26 Sep 1574502378233122816

HM is excited to announce that Lisa M. Adler and Ashley A. Butz, members of the firm’s estate planning practice, have been named members to the Estate Planning Council of Indianapolis.

Reply on Twitter 1574502378233122816Retweet on Twitter 1574502378233122816Like on Twitter 15745023782331228161Twitter 1574502378233122816
30 Aug 1564625082563137548

Harrison Moberly is proud to recognize and congratulate its 2023 Best Lawyers!

Twitter feed video.
Image for the Tweet beginning: Harrison Moberly is proud to
Reply on Twitter 1564625082563137548Retweet on Twitter 1564625082563137548Like on Twitter 15646250825631375481Twitter 1564625082563137548
25 Feb 1497260344577867776

Harrison & Moberly, LLP is proud to recognize and congratulate its 2022 Super Lawyers and Rising Star!

https://t.co/dtMUm1Bzfk

Twitter feed video.
Image for the Tweet beginning: Harrison & Moberly, LLP is
Reply on Twitter 1497260344577867776Retweet on Twitter 1497260344577867776Like on Twitter 1497260344577867776Twitter 1497260344577867776
1 Jun 2021 1399791212056530945

Harrison & Moberly is pleased to officially return to the Downtown office today and celebrated the occasion with a Taco Tuesday lunch to catch up with each other in person!

Twitter feed video.
Image for the Tweet beginning: Harrison & Moberly is pleased
Reply on Twitter 1399791212056530945Retweet on Twitter 1399791212056530945Like on Twitter 13997912120565309451Twitter 1399791212056530945
18 Nov 2019 1196439093527416833

For the 3rd year, H&M Attorneys Mark Pfeiffer and Fred Scott attended the 2019 Tippecanoe County Veterans Stand Down event on November 2, 2019, to provide pro bono legal advice on issues that routinely impact Indiana veterans! We are so grateful for their dedication and service!

Twitter feed video.
Image for the Tweet beginning: For the 3rd year, H&M
Reply on Twitter 1196439093527416833Retweet on Twitter 1196439093527416833Like on Twitter 11964390935274168331Twitter 1196439093527416833
Load More...

Recent Posts

Estate Planning Considerations for New Parents

Starting a family involves preparation and thinking ahead. …

David Theising to Speak at 2021 Annual Meeting of ABA Forum on Construction Law in New York City

Harrison & Moberly attorney David Theising has been invited …

Execute Documents Remotely

We will soon be able to assist clients in executing their estate …

Parenting Time During Governor Holcomb’s Stay at Home Order

During the current World upheaval, parents are looking for …

Estate Planning During Coronavirus & Social Distancing

During this frightening time, we are all reminded of life’s …

Footer

INDIANAPOLIS
(317) 639-4511

8335 Keystone Crossing
Suite 220
Indianapolis, IN 46240

CARMEL
(317) 639-4511

760 S Rangeline Road
Suite 164
Carmel, IN 46032

LEBANON
(317) 639-4511

114 South Meridian St.
Suite A
Lebanon, IN 46052

Site Footer

The information contained on this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. No recipients of content from this site, clients or otherwise, should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content included in the site without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from an attorney licensed in the recipient’s state.

Copyright © 2023 Harrison and Moberly LLP · All Rights Reserved ·