Preview:

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Timothy Hoffman Sanchez & Daniels Chicago, Illinois

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES
Scott M. Cohen John D. Barker Krohn & Moss, LTD Chicago, Illinois

______________________________________________________________________________

In the

Indiana Supreme Court
_________________________________ No. 66S03-0512-CV-625 DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, v. TINA WAGNER AND DARRIN WAGNER, Appellees (Plaintiffs below). _________________________________ Appeal from the Pulaski County Court, No. 66D01-0312-PL-015 The Honorable Patrick Blankenship, Judge _________________________________ On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 66A03-0406-CV-300 _________________________________ December 7, 2005 Dickson, Justice. Appellant (Defendant below),

This appeal presents the same procedural issue that we address today in Daimler Chrysler Corporation v. Yaeger, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. 2005). As in Yaeger, the defendants sought to appeal from the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, but failed to seek trial court certification authorizing it to appeal from the interlocutory order as required by Indiana Appellate Rule 14(B). The plaintiffs, Tina Wagner and Darrin Wagner, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, asserting failure to comply with Rule 14(B), but the Court of Appeals, in a memorandum decision, denied the motion and considered the appeal, expressly following the reasoning of the majority in the Court of Appeals opinion in Yaeger. In accord with our opinion issued today in Yaeger, we now grant transfer and dismiss this appeal.

This appeal is dismissed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court.

Shepard, C.J., and Sullivan, Boehm, and Rucker, JJ., concur.

2



Download Daimler Chrysler Corporation v. Tina and Darrin Wagner.pdf

Indiana Law