Judge denies Bloomington’s motion, CRAA remains as plaintiff in annexation litigation
County Residents Against Annexation (CRAA) will remain as a plaintiff in the litigation pending in the courts on the merits of Bloomington’s effort to annex two geographic areas into the city.
The areas in question are Area 1A and Area 1B, located to the west and southwest of the city.
In a ruling signed on April 9, 2024, judge Nathan Nikirk denied the city of Bloomington’s motion to have CRAA removed as one of several plaintiffs in the case.
The order from Nikirk came about a week after oral arguments were heard, on April 1.
Nikirk’s order does not provide the legal reasoning behind his decision. It just says: “The Court, being duly advised, now finds in its sound discretion that Respondent’s motion is denied.”
The defendants listed in the case are the Monroe County auditor, the city of Bloomington, the city council, and John Hamilton, former mayor of Bloomington.
On April 1, the oral arguments were given for Bloomington by Andrew McNeil, with the Bose McKinney law firm. Presenting for CRAA’s side was William Beggs, with the Bunger & Robertson law firm.
The basic idea behind Bloomington’s motion for removal is that CRAA does not have legal standing to be a plaintiff in the legal action.
Bloomington argues that because CRAA does not own any land at all—in particular not in Area 1A or Area 1B, which are the subject of the litigation—the non-profit could not have filed a remonstration under state law, and therefore cannot be a party to the lawsuit.
Bloomington also argues that CRAA does not have any “members” let alone any who own land in the relevant areas, and because of that, cannot be a party to the litigation.
Bloomington cites the wording of the original complaint, which says about the non-profit: “CRAA joins this action in a representative capacity for other owners of land in Monroe County, Indiana located within territories 1A and 1B who oppose annexation.”
The “other owners of land” would have to be land owners who did not properly remonstrate during the remonstration period, Bloomington argues, and thus would not have standing to be a party to the lawsuit.
To counter Bloomington’s arguments, CRAA also points to its original complaint, not because of its content, but because of when the complaint was filed—more than two years ago.
CRAA says that Bloomington could have brought its motion to remove CRAA well before now. CRAA cites a 1997 Indiana court of appeals case, Mitchell v. Stevenson, that involved in part Indiana Trial Rule 21(A), which allows the removal of a named party. In its response to the city’s motion, CRAA cites Mitchell v. Stevenson: “Pursuant to this rule, when a party contends that joinder is inappropriate, he must timely move to drop those individuals as improperly joined parties.”
Bloomington has, for the two years the case has been litigated, treated CRAA as a party to the lawsuit, and for that reason should not be allowed now to remove CRAA as a party, CRAA says.
CRAA’s legal position is that even though CRAA is not a membership nonprofit, the residents of Area 1A and 1B who oppose annexation possess the “indicia of membership.”
In support of remaining as a plaintiff in the litigation, CRAA also points to the purpose clause in its founding documents, which reads: “The purpose of this organization is to educate, involve, organize, and represent the County needs and desires throughout involuntary annexation attempts by the City.”
CRRA wraps up its written response to Bloomington’s motion like this: “In the absence of any statutory authority barring CRAA from participating as a party in this case, the Court should deny the City’s Motion to Remove.”
In a follow-up reply to Bloomington’s motion, CRAA notes that Bloomington has not tried to argue that the city would be prejudiced through CRAA’s inclusion as a party.
With Nikirk’s order denying Bloomington’s motion now on the books, the trial on the merits of annexation for Area 1A and Area 1B is still set to start on April 29.
Court filings
