Opinion ID: 2227047
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did Starke Circuit Court or Porter Superior Court first acquire exclusive jurisdiction over this case?

Text: In order to determine who has won the race here, we must preliminarily address whether NIPSCO's August 1992 motion to amend its third-party complaint to add Edward Pivarnik as a party in Starke County, which the trial court granted, relates back to NIPSCO's original filing of the third-party complaint against Daniel Pivarnik and Robert Cauffman in December of 1991. We then must decide whether the Appellants were proper third-party defendants in Starke County under Trial Rule 14. If Appellants were proper third-party defendants under Trial Rule 14, our inquiry will be over because NIPSCO validly instituted its action against Appellants and the Starke Circuit Court acquired exclusive jurisdiction of the case when NIPSCO filed its third-party complaint. If Appellants were not proper third-party defendants, we shall have to address what happens when parties are improperly impleaded under Trial Rule 14.
In August of 1992, NIPSCO moved under Trial Rule 15(A) to amend its original third-party complaint to add Edward Pivarnik as an additional third-party defendant. The trial court granted the motion. We must decide whether that amendment relates back to the date on which NIPSCO filed its original third-party complaint against Daniel Pivarnik and Robert Cauffman in December of 1991. Trial Rule 15(C) governs the relation back of amendments to pleadings and provides in part: (C) Whenever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading. An amendment changing the party against whom a claim is asserted relates back if the foregoing provision is satisfied and, within the period provided by law for commencing the action against him, the party to be brought in by amendment: (1) has received such notice of the institution of the action that he will not be prejudiced in maintaining his defense on the merits; and (2) knew or should have known that but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against him. T.R. 15(C). The critical question in determining whether an amendment adding a party relates back usually concerns whether a statute of limitations has run and whether, therefore, the party to be added will be forced to defend an action otherwise barred. See 2 Harvey § 15.9, at 60. What effect Trial Rule 15(C) has when the issue is jurisdiction over a case appears to be a question of first impression in Indiana. NIPSCO's amendment made the same claims regarding the same occurrence against Edward Pivarnik as its original third-party complaint had made against Daniel Pivarnik. NIPSCO's amendment, therefore, meets the requirement that in order to relate back, an amendment to change a party must assert a claim arising out of the same occurrence set forth in the original pleading. T.R. 15(C). Edward Pivarnik was served on August 29, 1992 with a summons issued from the Starke Circuit Court. The limitations period for the trespass and injury to property that NIPSCO complains of against Edward Pivarnik is six years. Ind. Code. § 34-1-2-1 (1993); Scates v. State, Indiana Highway Comm'n (1978), 178 Ind. App. 624, 625, 383 N.E.2d 491, 492. NIPSCO's pipeline was ruptured in August 1991. Edward Pivarnik therefore had actual notice of the action against him by NIPSCO within the limitations period. Ind.Trial Rule 15(C)(1). And while Edward Pivarnik may have been prejudiced in his choice of forum, his receipt of notice in August has not prejudiced his defense on the merits. Id. Finally, when he was served within the limitations period, Edward Pivarnik learned not only that the action would have been brought against him, but that it had been brought against him. Ind.Trial Rule 15(C)(2). We conclude that NIPSCO's amendment of its third-party complaint meets the conditions of Trial Rule 15(C) governing the relation back of amendments to pleadings. Because NIPSCO's addition of Edward Pivarnik relates back to the date of NIPSCO's original pleading, Edward Pivarnik's position in this case is the same as that of Appellants Daniel Pivarnik and Robert Cauffman, the third-party defendants originally named by NIPSCO.
We agree with the Appellants that as an original matter they were improperly impleaded under Trial Rule 14. Trial Rule 14 permits a defendant to implead a third-party defendant who is or may be liable to him for all or part of the plaintiff's claim against him. T.R. 14(A). We have said of Trial Rule 14 that: The essence of the rule derives from the situation in which the third-party defendant's liability to the original defendant is contingent upon that defendant being held liable to the original plaintiff, where the original plaintiff could not have brought suit directly against the third-party defendants. City of Elkhart v. Middleton (1976), 265 Ind. 514, 520, 356 N.E.2d 207, 212. NIPSCO's claims against Appellants are in no way dependent upon NIPSCO being held liable to GVK. Cauffman's potential liability arises out of his alleged negligent operation of the bulldozer that ruptured NIPSCO's pipeline. The Pivarniks' potential liability to NIPSCO depends upon whether they trespassed on NIPSCO's easement and whether they provided NIPSCO with the statutorily required notice of intent to excavate. All of the Appellants were therefore improperly impleaded by NIPSCO under Trial Rule 14.
Appellants argue that because NIPSCO's Rule 14 third-party complaint against them in Starke County was improper, the Starke Circuit Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this case. This argument is incorrect. There are three kinds of jurisdiction: subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and jurisdiction over a particular case. Mishler v. County of Elkhart (1989), Ind., 544 N.E.2d 149, 152-53; In re Chapman (1984), Ind. App., 466 N.E.2d 777, 779. We have said about subject matter jurisdiction that it refers only to the power of a court to hear and decide a particular class of cases. The only relevant inquiry in determining whether any court has has subject matter jurisdiction is to ask whether the kind of claim which the plaintiff advances falls within the general scope of the authority conferred upon such court by the constitution or by statute. Brown v. State (1941), 219 Ind. 251, 37 N.E.2d 73. State ex rel. Young v. Noble Cir. Ct. (1975), 263 Ind. 353, 356, 332 N.E.2d 99, 101. See also Indiana Util. Regulatory Comm'n v. Gary Joint Venture (1993), Ind. App., 609 N.E.2d 7, 9. Indiana Code § 33-4-4-3 confers on circuit courts original jurisdiction in all civil cases ... except where exclusive jurisdiction is conferred by law upon other courts of the same territorial jurisdiction. Ind. Code § 33-4-4-3 (1993) (emphasis added). That is, circuit courts have subject matter jurisdiction without reference to any particular parties or how they may have articulated their claims. P.S. by Harbin v. W.S. (1983), Ind., 452 N.E.2d 969, 976. Subject matter jurisdiction concerns the power of a court to decide particular kinds of cases and depends neither on the the intricacies of pleading, Young, 263 Ind. at 356-57, 332 N.E.2d at 101, nor on the correctness of any decision made by a court. State ex. rel . Hight v. Marion Super. Ct. (1989), Ind., 547 N.E.2d 267, 269; In re Adoption of H.S. (1985), Ind. App., 483 N.E.2d 777, 780. The Starke Circuit Court's jurisdiction over the subject matter involved in this case does not depend, then, on the correctness vel non either of NIPSCO's decision to file a third-party complaint against Appellants or of its own decisions concerning the pleadings in the case.
In City of Elkhart v. Middleton we said that the use of impleader under Trial Rule 14, as under Trial Rule 20, which governs permissive joinder, is within a trial court's sound discretion. 265 Ind. at 518, 356 N.E.2d at 210. But we also limited that discretion to the terms of Trial Rule 14 itself: [C]ourts which rely on their discretion in testing whether the third-party claim is of the type contemplated by rule 14 exercise their discretion beyond the bounds of the rule which gives them that power. Rule 14 expressly limits the type of third-party claims permitted, and the courts have no power to redetermine these limitations. The question whether a claim is within the rule is one of interpretation, not of discretion. The purpose of Trial Rule 14 is to permit common questions of fact to be determined in one litigation in order to avoid delay between one judgment against a party in one action and a judgment for him in a separate action, and to militate against the possibility of inconsistent results. Id. at 519-20, 356 N.E.2d at 211 (quoting 2 Harvey 17). We confront here the converse of the problem we faced in Middleton. In Middleton the trial court denied a motion to implead a third-party defendant when the terms of the rule demanded it in the absence of the likelihood of confusion or prejudice to the parties sought to be joined. In this case, joinder under Trial Rule 14(A) would clearly be improper. This is important because if NIPSCO's December 1991 third-party complaint against Appellants was improper and should have been dismissed, there would have been no third-party complaint for NIPSCO to seek to amend in August of 1992. With no third-party complaint to amend, NIPSCO would have effectively instituted its action against Appellants in Starke County when it filed its motion to amend on August 5th. By August 5th, Cauffman had already filed his complaint against NIPSCO in Porter County in March; the Pivarniks had filed against NIPSCO in Porter County in May. Thus, if the Starke Circuit Court should have dismissed NIPSCO's third-party complaint against Appellants, the Porter Superior Court will have exclusive jurisdiction over Appellants' cases. We now hold that not only did the Starke Circuit Court properly deny Appellants' motions to dismiss NIPSCO's third-party complaint, but that under Trial Rules 14(C) and 20(A)(2) it had no discretion to dismiss NIPSCO's third-party complaint. When a party has been improperly impleaded, Trial Rule 14(C) provides that remedy is to be had by a motion to sever the third-party claim or a motion for a separate trial. Ind.Trial Rule 14(C); Claxton v. Hutton (1993), Ind. App., 615 N.E.2d 471, 476; Redman Homes v. Speer (1986), Ind. App., 500 N.E.2d 259, 260. [5] But Trial Rule 14(C) also provides that [i]f the third-party defendant is a proper party to the proceedings under any other rule relating to parties, the action shall continue as in other cases where he is made a party. T.R. 14(C) (emphasis added). This provision, of which there is no equivalent in the Federal Rules, is mandatory. Compare Fed.R.Civ.P. 14. When a party seeks to be dismissed for improper joinder under Rule 14, a trial court must examine any other rule relating to parties. If the trial court determines that the party seeking dismissal is a proper party under any other rule, the trial court has no discretion to dismiss that party since the action shall continue as in other cases where he is made a party. [6] An examination of Trial Rule 20 reveals that Appellants are proper parties to the Starke County action under Trial Rule 20 and are, consequently, proper parties under Trial Rule 14(C). Trial Rule 20 provides in part: (A) Permissive joinder. (1) All persons may join in one [1] action as plaintiffs if they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all these persons will arise in the action. (2) All persons may be joined in one [1] action as defendants if there is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative, any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action. A plaintiff or defendant need not be interested in obtaining or defending against all the relief demanded. Judgment may be given for one or more of the plaintiffs according to their respective rights to relief, and against one or more defendants according to their respective liabilities. Unwilling plaintiffs who could join under this rule may be joined by a plaintiff as defendants, and the defendant may make any persons who could be joined under this rule parties by alleging their interest therein with a prayer that their rights in the controversy be determined, along with any counterclaim or cross-claim against them, if any, as if they had been originally joined as parties. T.R. 20(A) (emphasis added). The last sentence of Trial Rule 20(A) has no federal equivalent. Compare Fed.R.Civ.P. 20. [7] In Indiana, [u]nder Rule 20 the defendant may cause any parties defendant or plaintiff to be joined if the plaintiff could have done so. Civil Code Study Commission Comments in 2 Harvey 247. By virtue of Indiana's Trial Rule 20, then, there is no need for a defendant in one action to wait to be sued separately by a plaintiff not a party to that action and to defend in the forum of that absent plaintiff's choice. As long as the action of the absent plaintiff would arise out of the same occurrence as is involved in the first action, T.R. 20(A)(1) and (2), and as long as some common question of law or fact would arise in the action, id., a defendant may join that plaintiff in the first action and avoid having to relitigate the issues again and elsewhere. T.R. 20(A)(2) (last sentence). There is no question in the case before us that the Pivarniks and Cauffman could have joined with GVK as plaintiffs in this lawsuit against NIPSCO. Their claims against NIPSCO arise out of the same occurrence as those of GVK, and common questions of both law and fact would have arisen had they joined with GVK. T.R. 20(A)(1). Because the Pivarniks and Cauffman could have joined as plaintiffs with GVK under Trial Rule 20(A)(1), GVK could itself have joined the Pivarniks and Cauffman as unwilling plaintiffs. T.R. 20(A)(2). The Pivarniks and Cauffman could, therefore, have been joined under Trial Rule 20, and defendant NIPSCO consequently had a right under the rule to seek joinder of the Pivarniks and Cauffman by alleging the Pivarniks' and Cauffman's interest in the lawsuit and by asking that the court determine that interest. T.R. 20(A)(2). Because Appellants were proper parties under Trial Rule 20, it should have been apparent to all from the outset that by its Rule 14 third-party complaint against Cauffman and Daniel Pivarnik, NIPSCO validly instituted its action against them in Starke County regardless of whether they were proper third-party defendants. Consequently, Appellants have been proper parties to the Starke County action from the time NIPSCO filed its third-party complaint in December of 1991, and NIPSCO's motions under Trial Rule 12(B)(8) to dismiss Appellants separate actions against it in Porter County should be granted because the same case was already pending in Starke Circuit Court when NIPSCO filed those motions.