Court Opinion

ID: 9726369
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 12:46:31.62354+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:26.536856
License: Public Domain

*304BROOK, Chief Judge,
concurring in result.
In my view, Bedle's arguments are based on the faulty premise that the trial court dismissed her complaint because her contract with Kowars is unenforceable under both Indiana and Ohio law. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Kowars sought to dismiss Bedle's complaint on the grounds of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, as well as on the alternative ground of forum non convenmiens. See Appellant's App. at 38 (motion to dismiss); id. at 47-51 (memorandum discussing forum non conveniens considerations under Ind. Trial Rule 4A4(C)). Indiana Trial Rule 44(C) provides,
Jurisdiction under this rule is subject to the power of the court to order the litigation to be held elsewhere under such reasonable conditions as the court in its discretion may determine to be just.
In the exercise of that discretion the court may appropriately consider such factors as:
(1) Amenability to personal jurisdiction in this state and in any alternative forum of the parties to the action;
(2) Convenience to the parties and witnesses of the trial in this state in any alternative forum;
(3) Differences in conflict of law rules applicable in this state and in the alternative forum; or
(4) Any other factors having substantial bearing upon the selection of a convenient, reasonable and fair place of trial.
At the hearing, Kowars's counsel informed the trial court,
As you may or may not know, there is another case now pending in this Court filed by another plaintiff against Mrs. Kowars alleging that he too is entitled to one-half the jackpot won by Mrs. Ko-wars, and in the interest of judicial efficiency and economical litigation, we would like to ... at this time, withdraw our Motion To Transfer The Venue, and should this Court deny the Motion To Dismiss on the basis of Jackson v Kraus, that the case remain here in Indiana so that the two matters can be consolidated and handled together. Obviously, our desire is to have this Court apply the Ohio law before it and decide that an Ohio Court would not enforce the alleged agreement, but if we lose this Motion ... in consultation with her attorneys, Mrs. Kowars would desire for the case to stay here, so we withdraw the Motion To Transfer Venue on the basis form non-convenience [sic] at this time.
Id. at 17-18. The trial court confirmed that Bedle had no objection to Kowars's motion to withdraw but never specifically ruled on the motion.
The trial court's order on Kowars's motion to dismiss reads in relevant part as follows:
And the Court, having been duly advised in the premises and having heard the evidence herein, the arguments of counsel and having reviewed briefs of the parties, now finds:
1. That the contract which is the subject of this cause of action was negotiated and made in the State of Ohio;
2. That the parties are both residents of the State of Ohio and were at the time the contract was made;
3. That the contract was to be performed in the State of Ohio; and
4. That the witnesses in this cause of action have their residences in the State *305of Ohio within the Hamilton County area.
For all the above reasons, the Court grants [Kowars's] motion to dismiss.
Id. at 5.
Clearly, the trial court did not dismiss Bedle's complaint on the basis that the contract was unenforceable under both Indiana and Ohio law. Given that Bedle does not challenge the stated basis of the order, I would find her arguments waived and affirm the trial court's dismissal of her complaint.