Danny's Sports Bar Chi. Style Pizza v. Schuman

Decision Date06 January 2015
Docket NumberNo. 43A04–1407–CT–321.,43A04–1407–CT–321.
Citation26 N.E.3d 686 (Table)
PartiesDANNY'S SPORTS BAR CHICAGO STYLE PIZZA, Appellant–Defendant, v. Todd SCHUMAN, Appellee–Plaintiff.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

26 N.E.3d 686 (Table)

DANNY'S SPORTS BAR CHICAGO STYLE PIZZA, Appellant–Defendant
v.
Todd SCHUMAN, Appellee–Plaintiff.

No. 43A04–1407–CT–321.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Jan. 6, 2015.


James J. Shea, Sr., Andrew S. Williams, Fort Wayne, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

Thomas D. Blackburn, Blackburn & Green, Fort Wayne, IN, Attorney for Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION—NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MATHIAS, Judge.

Danny's Sports Bar Chicago Style Pizza (“Danny's”) appeals the trial court's refusal to set aside a default judgment entered against it in favor of Todd Schuman (“Schuman”). Danny's raises two issues, which we restate as:

I. Whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over the case, and
II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Danny's motion to set aside the default judgment.
We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

On February 21, 2012, Schuman filed a complaint for damages, naming restaurant “Danny's Pizza & Sports Bar” as the defendant. Schuman later filed a motion, which the trial court granted, to substitute “Danny's Sports Bar Chicago Style Pizza” as the defendant. Danny's Sports Bar Chicago Style Pizza is one of two businesses owned and operated by Mada Enterprises, LLC (“Mada Enterprises”).1

In his complaint, Schuman alleged that he suffered physical injury and incurred medical bills and lost wages after suffering a fall on the restaurant's premises. Schuman identified Danny's by its address, 3620 North Barbee Road, Warsaw, Indiana. Mada Enterprises received the summons and complaint in March 2012. The documents were forwarded to Dan Signore (“Signore”), part owner and registered agent of Mada Enterprises.

After receiving the complaint and summons, Signore failed to take any action, believing that no action was necessary “because there was no such entity as ‘Danny's Pizza & Sports Bar.’ “ Appellant's Br. at 3. No appearance or answer was filed on behalf of Danny's or Mada Enterprises. On December 10, 2012, nine months after service of the complaint and summons, Schuman filed a motion for default judgment. The trial court granted Schuman's motion on the same day.

On February 13, 2013, the trial court held a hearing to determine the amount of damages due to Schuman. Danny's received notice of the hearing but failed to appear. Appellant's App. pp. 2–3, 11. At the hearing, Schuman presented evidence indicating that he had incurred $55,438.88 in medical bills resulting from his fall at Danny's Sports Bar Chicago Style Pizza. Following the hearing, the trial court entered a judgment in Schuman's favor in the amount of $68,216 .40, plus interest.

On November 27, 2013, Danny's filed a motion to set aside the default judgment, arguing that “[t]he default judgment should be set aside because of mistake and excusable neglect (and because the judgment is substantial). Furthermore, the evidence shows that the Defendant has meritorious defenses [.]” Id. at 27. Two months later, on January 23, 2014, Schuman filed a motion to substitute “Mada Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Danny's Sports Bar Chicago Style Pizza” in place of “Danny's Sports Bar Chicago Style Pizza” as defendant. Appellant's App. p. 65. The trial court made no ruling on this motion.

The trial court held a hearing on Danny's motion to set aside the default judgment on June 2, 2014 and ten days later entered an order denying the motion and finding that the default judgment was not the result of any justifiable mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect by Danny's.

Danny's now appeals.

I. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Danny's first argues that because Schuman “filed this lawsuit against a nonexistent entity,” the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction of the case. Specifically, it argues that the trial court's default judgment “is void because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the non-existent entities, ‘Danny's Pizza & Sports Bar’ and ‘Danny's Sports Bar Chicago Style Pizza.’ “ Appellant's Br. at 5, citing Rich v. Fid. Trust Co. of Indianapolis, 137 Ind.App. 619, 632, 207 N.E.2d 850, 858 (1965) (“The trial court cannot have jurisdiction over the subject matter of a claim against nonexistent entities.”).

“Subject matter jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings then before the court belong.” Hubbard v. Columbia Women's Hosp. of Indianapolis, 807 N.E.2d 45, 50 (Ind.Ct.App.2004). When a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, its actions are void ab initio and have no effect whatsoever. Parkview Hosp. Inc. v. Geico General Ins. Co., 977 N.E.2d 369, 371 (Ind.Ct.App.2012), trans. denied. Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived or conferred by agreement and can be raised at any time by the parties or the court, including on appeal. Weldon v. Universal Reagents, Inc., 714 N.E.2d 1104, 1107 (Ind.Ct.App.1999).

Here, Schuman filed his complaint against “Danny's Sports Bar Chicago Style Pizza,” one of only two businesses operated by Mada Enterprise. When the complaint and summons arrived at Mada Enterprises, they were forwarded directly to Signore. It is undisputed that Signore, part owner and registered agent of Mada Enterprises, received the complaint and summons and failed to file an answer or appearance until after default judgment had been entered against it. The record reveals that Schuman's complaint describes an incident that occurred at 3620 North Barbee Road, Warsaw, Indiana, which is also the address of Mada Enterprises. The complaint names as the defendant “Danny's Sports Bar Chicago Style Pizza,” which is...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT