ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES
Timothy Hoffman Scott M. Cohen
Sanchez & Daniels John D. Barker
Chicago, Illinois Krohn & Moss, LTD
Chicago, Illinois
______________________________________________________________________________
In the
Indiana Supreme Court
_________________________________
No. 66S03-0512-CV-625
DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
TINA WAGNER AND DARRIN WAGNER, Appellees (Plaintiffs below).
_________________________________
Appeal from the Pulaski County Court, No. 66D01-0312-PL-015
The Honorable Patrick Blankenship, Judge
_________________________________
On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 66A03-0406-CV-300
_________________________________
December 7, 2005
Dickson, Justice.
This appeal presents the same procedural issue that we address today in Daimler Chrysler
Corporation v. Yaeger, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. 2005). As in Yaeger, the defendants sought to ap-
peal from the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, but failed to
seek trial court certification authorizing it to appeal from the interlocutory order as required by
Indiana Appellate Rule 14(B). The plaintiffs, Tina Wagner and Darrin Wagner, filed a motion
to dismiss the appeal, asserting failure to comply with Rule 14(B), but the Court of Appeals, in a
memorandum decision, denied the motion and considered the appeal, expressly following the
reasoning of the majority in the Court of Appeals opinion in Yaeger. In accord with our opinion
issued today in Yaeger, we now grant transfer and dismiss this appeal.
This appeal is dismissed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court.
Shepard, C.J., and Sullivan, Boehm, and Rucker, JJ., concur.
2