861 N.E.2d 1212 (Ind.App. 2007), 49A02-0607-CV-577, Swift v. Speedway Superamerica, LLC

Docket Nº:49A02-0607-CV-577.
Citation:861 N.E.2d 1212
Party Name:Mary SWIFT, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC., Appellee-Defendant.
Case Date:February 26, 2007
Court:Court of Appeals of Indiana
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1212

861 N.E.2d 1212 (Ind.App. 2007)

Mary SWIFT, Appellant-Plaintiff,

v.

SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC., Appellee-Defendant.

No. 49A02-0607-CV-577.

Court of Appeals of Indiana

February 26, 2007

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT Cause No. 49D02-0404-PL-832, The Honorable Kenneth H. Johnson, Presiding Judge

Page 1213

Ronald E. Weldy, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

William R. Groth, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellee.

OPINION

HOFFMAN, Senior Judge

Plaintiff-Appellant Mary Swift ("Swift") appeals from the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Speedway Superamerica, LLC., ("Speedway") and denying Swift's motion for summary judgment. We affirm.

Swift was an at-will employee of Speedway from May of 1998 until March 10, 2004. Swift was a store manager at the time of her resignation earning a weekly salary of $716.00. Speedway pays its store managers weekly salaries, and they also are eligible for bonuses under Speedway's Store Manager Bonus Program.

After her resignation, Swift filed a complaint against Speedway under Indiana's Wage Claim Statute, Ind.Code § 22-2-9-1 et seq., and Indiana's Wage Payment Statute, Ind.Code § 22-2-5-1 et seq. In her complaint, filed on August 29, 2004, Swift sought reimbursement and damages for sick pay and store manager bonuses she alleged were owed to her by Speedway. Speedway denied Swift's allegations, and filed a motion for summary judgment on March 8, 2005. On May 19, 2005, Swift filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. After all of the briefs in support and opposition of the motions were filed, the trial court held oral argument on those motions on December 16, 2005. The trial court granted Speedway's motion for summary judgment and denied Swift's cross-motion for summary judgment on February 27, 2006. Swift filed a motion to correct error on March 29, 2006. The trial court held oral argument on the motion on June 8, 2006. On June 12, 2006, the trial court denied the motion to correct error.

The purpose of summary judgment is to terminate litigation about which there can be no factual dispute and which may be determined as a matter of law. Williams v. Riverside Community Corrections Corp., 846 N.E.2d 738, 743 (Ind.Ct.App. 2006). Our standard of review is the same as that of the trial court. Summary judgment is appropriate only where the evidence shows there is no genuine issue of

Page 1214

material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. all facts and reasonable inferences drawn from those facts are construed in favor of the non-moving party. Id. The trial court's order granting and/or denying summary judgment is cloaked with a presumption of validity. Id...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP