Analise Parsley v. Ethan Marasco, Eric Marasco, and Rosiel Marasco

Summary

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment against Analise Parsley in her tort action against Ethan Marasco and his parents. The court held that Parsley’s federal complaint, which alleged Indiana citizenship for the plaintiff and two defendants, facially lacked complete diversity, and that counsel’s filing of the federal action constituted negligence in the prosecution under Indiana’s Journey’s Account Statute. The court also held that equitable tolling did not apply because the Journey’s Account Statute governed the sequence of filings.

Holdings

1. The Journey's Account Statute did not save Parsley's late-filed state complaint because the federal complaint, on its face, demonstrated a lack of complete diversity, and filing that complaint constituted negligence in the prosecution.
2. Equitable tolling under Torres did not save Parsley's state complaint because the Journey's Account Statute governed the sequence of events and required Parsley to satisfy its non-negligence condition, which she did not.
3. Summary judgment for Ethan, Eric, and Rosiel Marasco was proper because Parsley's state complaint was untimely and neither the Journey's Account Statute nor equitable tolling applied.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Parsley's late-filed state-court action was saved by Indiana's Journey's Account Statute because her earlier federal action failed for a reason other than negligence in the prosecution.
2. Whether equitable tolling applied to make the state-court action timely notwithstanding the Journey's Account Statute.
3. Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment to defendants on the statute-of-limitations issue.

Disposition

affirmed