Background
A Pennsylvania nonprofit, the Center for Gestalt Development, twice sued Indiana author and therapist Charles Bowman in Pennsylvania federal court over copyrighted Gestalt-therapy materials. After the first case was dismissed voluntarily and the second was dismissed for venue and jurisdiction problems, Bowman sued the Center, its president Mary Rawle, attorney John Powell, and Powell’s Pennsylvania firm in Hamilton Superior Court. He alleged abuse of process, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy.
The defendants removed the case to federal court, where Bowman capped damages below $75,000 and obtained a remand. In January 2023 they moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. That motion remained unresolved when Bowman sought default almost two years later. The trial court entered default judgment in September 2025 and denied a motion to correct error. The appeal addressed both the default and whether Indiana could exercise jurisdiction over the out-of-state defendants.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held the default was an abuse of discretion. Indiana Trial Rule 55 allows default when a party has failed to plead or otherwise comply with the rules, but these defendants had appeared, removed the case, and filed a dismissal motion. Their failure to file an answer while that threshold motion was pending did not justify the severe sanction, particularly because Indiana policy favors decisions on the merits. The court reversed the default as to every defendant.
It then held Indiana lacked specific personal jurisdiction over Rawle, Powell, and the law firm. Due process requires the defendant—not merely the plaintiff—to create a substantial connection with the forum through purposefully directed conduct. Serving an Indiana resident in connection with Pennsylvania litigation, learning information about his Indiana home, and sending a settlement demand through Indiana counsel did not show that these defendants invoked Indiana law or established sufficient forum contacts. The plaintiff’s Indiana location and receipt of communications could not be the only links. Because minimum contacts were absent, the judgment against those three defendants was void and their claims had to be dismissed. The Center did not contest jurisdiction, so its case returned for consideration of the still-pending Rule 12(B)(6) motion.
Key Takeaways
- A pending motion to dismiss is active defense of a case; default is not an appropriate substitute for deciding that threshold motion.
- Specific jurisdiction rests on contacts created by each defendant, not simply on injury felt by a plaintiff who lives in Indiana.
- Out-of-state litigation, service on an Indiana resident, and settlement communications do not by themselves amount to purposeful availment of Indiana.
- Personal jurisdiction must be analyzed defendant by defendant; one entity’s decision not to contest jurisdiction does not establish jurisdiction over related people or counsel.
Why It Matters
The opinion gives Indiana litigators two useful reminders. First, trial courts should resolve jurisdiction and pleading motions before entertaining default based on the absence of an answer. A party seeking default should examine the docket for any filing that constitutes an appearance or defense, while a defendant should continue monitoring answer deadlines and seek an express ruling when a motion lingers.
Second, tort allegations arising from litigation elsewhere do not automatically become an Indiana case because the target resides here. Complaints must identify forum-directed acts by each defendant. Lawyers communicating across state lines should still act carefully, but Rawle confirms that representation in foreign litigation and a demand received in Indiana are not, without more, consent to suit in Indiana.