Preview:

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.

FILED
Mar 12 2009, 9:34 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS: ROBERT P. KONDRAS, JR. Hunt, Hassler & Lorenz LLP Terre Haute, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: SUSAN L. WILLIAMS Frost Brown Todd LLC New Albany, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
KATRINA L. SNOW and CHRISTINA M. WRIGHT, Appellants-Plaintiffs, vs. BR ASSOCIATES, INC. and SIDAL, INC., Appellees-Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 84A04-0806-CV-360

APPEAL FROM THE VIGO SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Michael J. Lewis, Judge Cause No. 84D06-0711-CT-11883

March 12, 2009

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

NAJAM, Judge

STATEMENT OF THE CASE Christina M. Wright1 appeals from the trial courts order setting aside default judgment and staying all further proceedings pending arbitration of Wrights claims against BR Associates, Inc. ("BR") and Sidal, Inc. ("Sidal") (collectively "Defendants"). Wright presents four issues for review, which we consolidate and restate as: 1. Whether the trial courts special findings and conclusions are adequate for appellate review. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it set aside the default judgment against Defendants. Whether the trial court erred when it stayed the proceedings and ordered the parties to arbitrate Wrights claims.

2.

3.

We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY According to the complaint,2 Wright is a former assistant manager of a Dennys restaurant in Terre Haute. BR and/or Sidal3 own restaurants in Indiana, Illinois,

Kentucky, and Ohio, including the Dennys restaurant where Wright worked from April 25, 2003, to the Spring of 2006. On November 19, 2007, Wright and Katrina L. Snow ("Plaintiffs") filed their Collective Action and Class Action Complaint for damages and Injunctive Relief and Request for Trial by Jury ("Complaint"). In the Complaint, they

While the appeal originally filed by Wright and Katrina L. Snow was pending, Snow filed a Joint Motion for Partial Dismissal. In that motion, Snow and Defendants agreed to the dismissal of all of Snows claims with prejudice. Because the proceedings in this case have been stayed pending arbitration, there has been no trial to determine the facts. Thus, for purposes of our review, we assume the facts as al leged in Plaintiffs complaint and Defendants motion to set aside default judgment. The parties agree that Plaintiffs are former employees of BR, but Defendants dispute whether Plaintiffs were employed by Sidal.
3 2

1

2

allege in part that Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.

Download Katrina L. Snow and Christina M. Wright v. BR Associates, Inc. and Sidal, Inc..p

Indiana Law