Opinion ID: 852657
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Action Pending Elsewhere

Text: The Lake Circuit Court certainly possessed subject matter jurisdiction (the power to hear the class of disputes to which the one in question belonged). The circuit court has original jurisdiction in all civil cases and in all criminal cases, except where exclusive jurisdiction is conferred by law upon other courts of the same territorial jurisdiction. IND.CODE ANN. § 33-28-1-2(a) (West 2004). The Lake Superior Court is likewise a court of general jurisdiction. IND.CODE ANN. §§ 33-33-45-3, -6 (West 2004). However, this case is not about subject matter jurisdiction, but rather priority. As a general principle ... when an action is pending before an Indiana court, the other Indiana courts must defer to that court's authority. 7 I.L.E. Courts § 87 (2000). Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(8) allows a defendant to assert as an affirmative defense that the same action is pending in another state court. The rule recognizes that two courts may not simultaneously exercise jurisdiction over what amounts to the same case. Centex Home Equity Corp. v. Robinson, 776 N.E.2d 935, 945 (Ind.Ct.App.2002). Both Dordieski and the Commission asserted this defense in their responsive pleadings, as required by Trial Rule 12(H)(1)(b). [1] Two cases are the same if the parties, subject matter, and remedies sought are substantially the same in both suits. Pivarnik v. N. Indiana Pub. Serv. Co., 636 N.E.2d 131, 134 (Ind.1994). In the 1992 certiorari petition, Kozlowski challenged the Commission's approval of the Dordieski subdivision. (Appellant's App. at 19; Appellees'/Dordieskis' App. at 1-2.) In the 2001 complaint for injunctive relief, Kozlowski sought demolition of the Dordieski subdivision improvements and an injunction against similar construction. (Appellees'/Dordieskis' App. at 2.) The only difference for 12(B)(8) purposes lies in Kozlowsi's request in the second action to demolish the improvements, while the first action sought to prevent them from being made. Both cases had substantially the same parties, subject matter, and remedies sought. The Lake Circuit Court was right to refrain from exercising authority over this case.