
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


John Merchant, a prior owner and co-manager of Indiana Illinois Iowa Boxcar, LLC (“iCube”), alleges misconduct by his former business partners R. Powell and Sandra Felix (“the Felixes”). After selling his ownership interest in iCube to R. Powell, Merchant sued iCube and the Felixes. Merchant also sued Katz, Sapper & Miller, LLC (“KSM”), which he claimed had provided accounting services to iCube, the Felixes, and another company called Indiana Boxcar Corporation (“IBC”). KSM moved to dismiss Merchant’s claims against it, arguing that it had never provided accounting services to Merchant and, consequently, had never owed him a duty. The trial court granted KSM’s motion, leading to this interlocutory appeal.
On appeal, Merchant contends that the trial court erred in determining that KSM had not owed him a duty, while KSM contends that the trial court’s decision regarding its lack of duty to Merchant is correct. Merchant, for his part, argues that because he was a member of iCube and iCube was KSM’s client, KSM owed him a duty. KSM, on the other hand, argues that they only owed a duty to iCube and that this duty did not extend to Merchant. KSM also requests appellate attorneys’ fees, arguing that Merchant’s appeal is frivolous and was brought in bad faith.
By
John Merchant, a prior owner and co-manager of Indiana Illinois Iowa Boxcar, LLC (“iCube”), alleges misconduct by his former business partners R. Powell and Sandra Felix (“the Felixes”). After selling his ownership interest in iCube to R. Powell, Merchant sued iCube and the Felixes. Merchant also sued Katz, Sapper & Miller, LLC (“KSM”), which he claimed had provided accounting services to iCube, the Felixes, and another company called Indiana Boxcar Corporation (“IBC”). KSM moved to dismiss Merchant’s claims against it, arguing that it had never provided accounting services to Merchant and, consequently, had never owed him a duty. The trial court granted KSM’s motion, leading to this interlocutory appeal.
On appeal, Merchant contends that the trial court erred in determining that KSM had not owed him a duty, while KSM contends that the trial court’s decision regarding its lack of duty to Merchant is correct. Merchant, for his part, argues that because he was a member of iCube and iCube was KSM’s client, KSM owed him a duty. KSM, on the other hand, argues that they only owed a duty to iCube and that this duty did not extend to Merchant. KSM also requests appellate attorneys’ fees, arguing that Merchant’s appeal is frivolous and was brought in bad faith.