Per curiam
Article I, Section 12 of the Indiana Constitution provides that justice “shall be administered freely, and without purchase; completely, and without denial; speedily, and without delay.” One way to enforce this directive is through Trial Rule 53.1, which empowers our Court to withdraw a case from a trial judge and appoint a special judge if the trial court fails to rule on a motion by the prescribed deadlines.
The Relators—Gary Thoe, Merry Thoe, Julie Long, and Janice Menke— seek a writ withdrawing the underlying action from the trial judge for his failure to timely rule on several motions. Because we find this matter should have been withdrawn from the trial judge under Trial Rule 53.1, we grant this writ and appoint the Honorable Kurt M. Eisgruber, Judge of Marion Superior Court, as special judge.
I. Background and Procedural History
Both this original action and State ex rel. Mayhill v. Marion Superior Court 5, No. 25S-OR-551 , stem from the trial proceedings in Mayhill v. Thoe, a lawsuit John Mayhill filed in November 2019.
The procedural history of Mayhill v. Thoe is complex, but the issues presented here are narrow: (1) whether the trial court impermissibly failed to rule on several motions for over thirty days; and (2) as a result, the matter should have been withdrawn from the trial judge in response to Relators’ Trial Rule 53.1 praecipe.
….
After the May 10 hearing, the trial judge took the summary judgment motions and several other motions under advisement, making any ruling due Monday, June 10. See Ind. Trial Rule 53.1(A). The judge said his plan was “to expedite” ruling on the pending motions. “I will need a few weeks to do it, but you know I will.”
….
Four days later, on June 16, Relators filed a Trial Rule 53.1 praecipe identifying several motions that had not been ruled upon for more than thirty days…
That same day, the trial clerk entered the praecipe on the CCS, but the record does not show whether she completed the process by forwarding it to this Court’s Chief Administrative Officer (“CAO”) as Trial Rule 53.1(E) requires. For the next eight months, the trial court proceeded as though the praecipe had been forwarded and was pending the CAO’s determination…
….
On April 7, the CAO issued an order declining to withdraw the matter from the judge. This order (“53.1 Order”) identified only one pending motion—the Mayhill Sisters’ summary judgment motion—and determined that because Relators filed the praecipe after their motion to continue was denied, the matter should not be removed…
Relators then filed their own original action. They argue the CAO erred by relying on Koppe to find the matter should not be withdrawn from the trial judge. They further allege the judge (1) failed to act when he was under a duty to act by not timely ruling on the summary judgment motions; and (2) exceeded his jurisdiction by setting a status hearing when jurisdiction should have been withdrawn under Rule 53.1
II. Relators are entitled to appointment of a special judge under Trial Rule 53.1
Relators seek a writ withdrawing Mayhill v. Thoe from the trial court and appointing a special judge. They argue the respondent judge’s thirty-day window to rule on the pending motions closed on June 10, and the judge did not ask the parties to waive that deadline or seek an extension of time from this Court.
A. The trial court did not timely rule on several pending motions.
….
Our Court has enforced Trial Rule 53.1 through original actions before…
The 53.1 Order cites Koppe for its language that “a party may not wait until after an unfavorable judgment or ruling to invoke or enforce T.R. 53.1.” But the praecipe simply identified the two pending summary judgment motions that had unequivocally not yet been ruled on. Relators argue that under the 53.1 Order’s reading of Koppe, an adverse ruling on any motion effectively eliminates the trial court’s obligation to rule on other pending motions within the Rule 53.1 deadlines. And while Koppe correctly notes that Trial Rule 53.1 praecipes should not be used to collaterally attack an adverse ruling, there is no indication from the record that a collateral attack happened here.
B. Relators have met the requirements of Original Action Rule 3(A).
Original Action Rule 3(A) requires all original action petitions to be verified or affirmed and to state facts showing clearly that:
(1) the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the matter as an original action;
(2) the petition is made expeditiously after the jurisdiction of the respondent court became an issue;
(3) the respondent court has exceeded its jurisdiction or the respondent court has failed to act when it was under a duty to act;
(4) the absence of jurisdiction of the respondent court or the failure of the court to act when it was under a duty to act has been raised in the court by a written motion filed therein and brought to the attention of the respondent judge, and the written motion has been denied or not ruled on timely;
(5) the denial of the petition will result in extreme hardship; and
(6) the remedy available by appeal will be wholly inadequate.
On the face of the pleadings, Relators have established elements (1), (3), (4), and (6). This Court has exclusive jurisdiction to decide issues under Trial Rule 53.1. The respondent court failed in its duty to act by not ruling on Relators’ summary judgment motions and motion to strike within the thirty-day deadline. Filing the Trial Rule 53.1 praecipe fulfills the writtenmotion requirement of element (4). And because there is no way to appeal an order declining to remove a matter from a trial judge under Rule 53.1, there is no appellate remedy.
The remaining two elements—whether the petition was “made expeditiously” and whether its denial “will result in extreme hardship” also rest in Relators’ favor.
….
Conclusion
Having granted Relators’ request to withdraw this matter from the trial court and appoint a special judge, this opinion vests jurisdiction in Judge Eisgruber and terminates the original action proceedings in this Court.
Petitions for rehearing or motions to reconsider are not allowed. Orig. Act. R. 5(C).
All Justices concur except Rush, C.J., who did not participate in the decision of this matter.