Case Title: Cooper's Hawk Indianapolis, LLC v. Ray

Citation: 

Docket Number: 21S-CT-00056

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 2021-02-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
I N  T H E
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 21S-CT-56 
Cooper’s Hawk Indianapolis, LLC d/b/a 
Cooper’s Hawk Winery & Restaurant, 
Appellant-Defendant, 
–v–
Katherine Ray, 
Appellee-Plaintiff. 
Decided: February 9, 2021 
Appeal from the Marion Superior Court 
No. 49D01-1810-CT-42030 
The Honorable Heather Welch, Judge 
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals 
No. 20A-CT-127 
Per Curiam Opinion 
Chief Justice Rush and Justices David, Massa, Slaughter, and Goff concur. 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Feb 09 2021, 11:46 am
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S-CT-56 | February 9, 2021 
Page 2 of 4 
Per curiam. 
In February 2018, Katherine Ray was injured when she slipped and fell 
in Cooper’s Hawk Winery & Restaurant. Ray filed a negligence complaint 
against Cooper’s Hawk in October 2018. On November 18, 2019, the trial 
court denied Cooper’s Hawk’s motion for summary judgment, and 
Cooper’s Hawk timely moved to certify this order for interlocutory 
appeal. 
On January 6, 2020, the trial court certified its order. On February 12, 
the Court of Appeals accepted the interlocutory appeal, making any 
Notice of Appeal due on or before Thursday, February 27. See Ind. 
Appellate Rule 14(B)(3). Cooper’s Hawk did not file a Notice of Appeal 
until March 3, 2020.  
On March 20, Ray moved to dismiss the appeal on timeliness grounds. 
In its response, Cooper’s Hawk conceded that the Notice of Appeal was 
belated but argued that the appeal presents a substantial question of law 
and should be allowed to proceed. A divided Court of Appeals motions 
panel denied Ray’s motion to dismiss without explanation.  
In a split opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the denial of the 
summary judgment motion. Cooper’s Hawk Indianapolis, LLC v. Ray, 150 
N.E.3d 698 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). Neither the majority nor the dissenting 
opinion addressed the untimeliness of the Notice of Appeal. 
We grant transfer, thereby vacating the Court of Appeals opinion.  
App. R. 58(A). 
Discussion and Decision 
Indiana Appellate Rule 9 prescribes the procedure for filing a party’s 
Notice of Appeal with the Clerk. Rule 9(A)(2) states that “[t]he initiation of 
interlocutory appeals is covered in Rule 14,” while the section of Rule 14 
governing discretionary interlocutory appeals provides that “[t]he 
appellant shall file a Notice of Appeal … within fifteen (15) days of the 
Court of Appeals’ order accepting jurisdiction over the interlocutory 
appeal.” Ind. App. R. 14(B)(3). Rule 9(A)(5) states that “[u]nless the Notice 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S-CT-56 | February 9, 2021 
Page 3 of 4 
of Appeal is timely filed, the right to appeal shall be forfeited except as 
provided by P.C.R. 2.” (emphasis added).  
Although it is never error for an appellate court to dismiss an untimely 
appeal, the forfeiture of the right to appeal on timeliness grounds does not 
deprive the appellate court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal. In re D.J. v. 
Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 68 N.E.3d 574, 579 (Ind. 2017); In re Adoption of 
O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965, 970 (Ind. 2014). To reinstate a forfeited appeal, an
appellant must show that there are “extraordinarily compelling reasons
why this forfeited right should be restored.” O.R., 16 N.E.3d at 971. In
O.R.—a father’s challenge to the adoption of his child—these
extraordinarily compelling reasons included “the constitutional
dimensions of the parent-child relationship.” Id. at 972; see also D.J., 68
N.E.3d at 580; Robertson v. Robertson, 60 N.E.3d 1085, 1090 (Ind. Ct. App.
2016). The Court of Appeals also has reinstated a forfeited appeal upon
finding that the trial court’s order was “manifestly unjust.” Cannon v.
Caldwell, 74 N.E.3d 255, 259 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).
In its “Response to Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal,” Cooper’s 
Hawk argued that the Court of Appeals should accept the appeal despite 
its untimeliness because “the legal issue on appeal involve[s] a substantial 
question of law, the early determination of which would promote a more 
orderly disposition of the case.” But this merely restates one of the three 
Appellate Rule 14(B)(1)(c) grounds for granting a discretionary 
interlocutory appeal; to overcome the forfeiture Rule 9(A)(5) requires, 
much more is needed.  
Having granted transfer, and finding no extraordinarily compelling 
reasons to restore the forfeited appeal, we dismiss the appeal and remand 
to the trial court for further proceedings.1 
Rush, C.J., and David, Massa, Slaughter, and Goff, JJ., concur. 
1 Cooper’s Hawk’s “Motion to Strike Portions of Appellee’s Petition for Transfer” is denied. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S-CT-56 | February 9, 2021 
Page 4 of 4 
A TT O R N E YS F O R  AP P EL LA N T  
Robert G. Sylvester 
Ronald A. Mingus 
Reminger Co., LPA 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
A TT O R N E Y F O R  A PP E LLE E  
Kyle L. Christie 
Christie Farrell Lee & Bell, P.C. 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
A TT O R N E Y F O R  A MI CU S CU R IAE , IN D IA NA  T R IA L LA W YER S  
A SS OC IA TI O N  
Ashley N. Hadler 
Garau Germano, P.C. 
Indianapolis, Indiana