Baker, J.
Craig Vickery appeals the trial court’s order granting Ardagh Glass, Inc.’s (Ardagh), motion for a preliminary injunction. Vickery raises the following arguments on appeal: (1) the trial court erred in granting a temporary restraining order when allegedly insufficient notice was provided to Vickery; and (2) the trial court erred in entering a preliminary injunction preventing Vickery from going to work for one of Ardagh’s competitors.
We find that Vickery received insufficient notice of the temporary restraining order proceeding, but that he has waived the right to seek relief on the issue. We further find that the trial court did not err by entering the preliminary injunction. We affirm and remand for further proceedings.
….
On September 25, 2017, the day on which we held oral argument, Vickery filed a motion to dismiss the entire lawsuit for lack of constitutional jurisdiction. He raises the following arguments in his motion: (1) our Supreme Court exceeded its authority by establishing the Commercial Court; (2) our Supreme Court lacks the authority to appoint the Commercial Court judges; (3) the Commercial Court bestows unconstitutional privileges on business entities; and (4) the Commercial Court permits corporate plaintiffs to compel individual defendants to distant venues, creating an extreme hardship.
Vickery acts as though litigating in the Commercial Court is compulsory if the plaintiff files a complaint there. That, however, is patently untrue. Our Supreme Court has promulgated Interim Commercial Court Rules, and Interim Rule 4(D)(3) plainly states that if a party to litigation that was filed in a Commercial Court files a Refusal Notice within thirty days of being notified that the case was filed in Commercial Court, then the clerk “shall transfer and assign the case to a non-Commercial Court Docket . . . .” (Emphasis added). Indeed, the Commentary to Interim Rule 4 even emphasizes that “every other party has an absolute veto” of the placement of a case on the Commercial Court docket. Interim Rule 4 cmt. 1. Only where, as here, no Refusal Notice is timely filed will the case be permanently assigned to a Commercial Court docket.
In this case, Vickery did not file a Refusal Notice within thirty days. And not until now did he object to the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court. He attempts to argue that he is raising questions regarding the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commercial Court, which can be raised at any point in time, but that is not what he is actually challenging. The Commercial Court is (in this case) part of the Marion Superior Court, which unquestionably has subject matter jurisdiction over this litigation. See Ind. Code § 33-29-1-1.5 (providing that all standard superior courts have original and concurrent jurisdiction in all civil cases). Despite Vickery’s attempt to reframe the issue otherwise, he is actually challenging the Commercial Court’s personal jurisdiction over him, which is a waivable argument. E.g., Harris v. Harris, 31 N.E.3d 991, 995 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). And here, indeed, he has consented to the Commercial Court’s personal jurisdiction over him by failing to object to it and by failing to file a Refusal Notice. Under these circumstances, Vickery has waived the right to challenge the Commercial Court’s jurisdiction or authority and we deny his motion to dismiss by separate order.
….
Here, at 11:00 a.m. on June 30, 2016, Ardagh’s counsel notified Vickery via email that it would be filing a lawsuit with the Commercial Court later that day and attached the pleadings it intended to file. While the attachments indicated that the lawsuit would be filed in a Commercial Court in Marion County, they did not indicate the date, time, or specific location of a hearing. Indeed, the trial court issued the TRO at 4:12 p.m. that same day without holding a hearing at all. TRO Order p. 5.
We cannot conclude that notice of an intent to file a lawsuit amounts to sufficient notice enabling the adverse party to appear in court in opposition to the proceeding. Furthermore, serving pleadings via email only complies with the Indiana Trial Rules under specific circumstances that were not present in this case, and counsel for Ardagh conceded as much at oral argument. See T.R. 4.1(A) (summons and complaint may not be served via email), 5(B) (party may serve another party via email only when the party being served has consented to service by email). We can only conclude, therefore, that to meet the requirements of due process and the Indiana Trial Rules, this proceeding had to have qualified for the notice exception provided for by Indiana Trial Rule 65(B).
….
After the TRO was granted without legally sufficient notice to Vickery, he could have objected, demanded a hearing, and/or sought to dissolve the TRO altogether. See T.R. 65(B) (if TRO is granted without notice, adverse party “may appear and move its dissolution or modification and in that event the court shall proceed to hear and determine such motion”) (emphasis added). Had he done so, the outcome on appeal may have been different. Instead, however, Vickery’s counsel entered an appearance and requested an extension of the TRO and agreed to combine the preliminary injunction and TRO hearings. Appellee’s App. Vol. II p. 32. By taking this course of action, Vickery waived any objection he may have had to the TRO process, including the lack of legally sufficient notice.
…
That said, we caution attorneys and trial courts around the state to be mindful of the notice requirements surrounding TROs. There are circumstances in which a TRO must truly be granted immediately without affording time to the adverse party to respond, but those circumstances must strictly meet the requirements set forth by Trial Rule 65(B). In all other cases, both the applicant party and the trial court are required by due process and the trial rules to ensure that the adverse party was given legally sufficient notice before final action is taken.
…
In sum, we find that, while the notice procedure in the underlying TRO was insufficient, Vickery has waived the right to make the argument on appeal. We also find that the trial court did not err when it concluded that (1) Ardagh has the right to enforce the Non-compete; (2) Ardagh has established a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of its breach of contract claim based on the Non-compete; (3) Ardagh has established a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of its claim under the Indiana Trade Secrets Act; (4) Ardagh has established that its remedies at law are inadequate and it would suffer irreparable harm during the pendency of the action; (5) the threatened harm to Ardagh outweighs the threatened harm to Vickery; and (6) the public interest would not be disserved by granting the injunction. In short, the trial court did not err by issuing the preliminary injunction.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed and remanded for further proceedings.
Bailey, J., and Altice, J., concur.