loader
Page is loading...
OVERVIEW

Mark J. Crandley
Partner

Indianapolis

11 South Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204-3535

P 317-261-7924

F 317-231-7433

OVERVIEW

Mark J. Crandley
Partner

Indianapolis

11 South Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204-3535

P 317-261-7924

F 317-231-7433

Appellate adviser and litigator Mark Crandley is at his best when faced with high-stakes claims that involve issues of critical importance and concern. After nearly two decades of practice, Mark knows what does and does not work. Clients and colleagues alike rely upon him for his judgement and leadership throughout the dispute resolution process.

OVERVIEW

Mark J. Crandley Partner

Indianapolis

11 South Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204-3535

P : 317-261-7924

Appellate adviser and litigator Mark Crandley is at his best when faced with high-stakes claims that involve issues of critical importance and concern. After nearly two decades of practice, Mark knows what does and does not work. Clients and colleagues alike rely upon him for his judgement and leadership throughout the dispute resolution process.

Mark focuses his practice on appeals, constitutional and government law, commercial litigation, and the resolution of probate disputes. He has represented government entities and businesses in courts across the country, and is valued for his skill in creating effective and efficient litigation strategies, particularly in expedited litigation.

As co-chair of the firm’s Appeals and Critical Motions practice and a founder and chair of the firm’s Government Litigation group, Mark has represented clients in scores of appeals in both state and federal courts. He has argued before the Indiana Supreme Court on numerous occasions and has also argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for Seventh Circuit and for the Sixth Circuit Court, the Indiana Court of Appeals and the Ohio Court of Appeals. Mark has also authored dozens of amicus curiae briefs, including amicus briefs submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court. Mark collaborates with other Barnes & Thornburg attorneys to produce an annual review examining the Indiana Supreme Court’s docket that is published by the Indiana Law Review.

Mark’s practice includes representing local governments in litigation throughout the state of Indiana. He has litigated a broad spectrum of constitutional and municipal law issues, including cases involving municipal utilities, annexation, municipal finance, government contracting, the Home Rule Act, zoning and the federal and Indiana constitutions. He has represented clients in cases of first impression regarding access to public records, public-private partnerships, municipal reorganization, and election issues. He has defended complex constitutional challenges to a variety of state laws and local ordinances. In addition, Mark regularly speaks on topics affecting state and local governments and has co-taught a law school class on the Indiana Constitution.

Mark’s commercial litigation practice includes litigation in both state and federal court, where he has tried cases both to the bench and to juries. He has represented clients in cases involving breach of contract, Articles 2, 3, 4 and 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, trade secrets and various forms of trade regulation.

Mark also represents individuals and corporate fiduciaries in probate disputes. He has tried multiple trust and guardianship cases throughout Indiana and on appeal.

Prior to rejoining the firm in 2005, Mark served as in-house counsel for the city of Indianapolis, representing the city in complex civil rights litigation and appeals in state and federal courts. As a result, Mark has an inside perspective on how government agencies operate and what drives their decision-making process, often a key component of effectively representing them today.

Before launching his legal career, Mark worked as a newspaper reporter and editor.

Professional and Community Involvement

Member, Council of Appellate Attorneys

Member, United States Supreme Court Historical Society

Member, American Bar Association

Member, Seventh Circuit Bar Association

Member, Indiana Municipal Lawyers Association

Board member, ArtMix Indiana

Honors

Indiana Super Lawyers 2012-2019, Rising Star 2010

The Best Lawyers in America, 2013-2019

EXPERIENCE
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a major homebuilder and won reversal and a summary judgment on appeal in a dispute about the meaning of terms in a developer’s agreement to build a residential subdivision. Beazer Homes Indiana, LLP v. Carriage Courts Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 905 N.E.2d 20 (Ind. Appl. 2009).
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented Centaur obtaining a victory against a state constitutional challenge to the city of Indianapolis' smoking ban. The ban was challenged by a group of bar owners who complained that they were treated unequally under the smoking ban because they could not allow smoking in their establishments, but an off-track betting facility maintained by our client could allow smoking. The plaintiffs relied on a recent Indiana Supreme Court case that struck down a similar ordinance because it exempted a local casino, but not bars and taverns. Centaur intervened in the suit to protect its exemption and argued that the city of Indianapolis could rationally choose to allow smoking at the off-track betting parlor because the facility was heavily regulated by the state Horse Racing Commission, which has previously approved a smoking plan for the facility. The trial court adopted the arguments made by Centaur and upheld both the ban and Centaur's exemption. The matter is currently on appeal.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys defended JET Credit Union against criminal conversion claim; court reversed lower court's summary judgment order for Loudermilk, holding that Loudermilk could not recover for criminal conversion and remanded the case for entry of summary judgment in favor of firm client, JET. JET Credit Union v. Loudermilk, No. 49A04-0608-CV-475 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys obtained a favorable judgment on behalf of a municipal client against claims under the federal and state constitutions as well as the Indiana Home Rule Act in regard to an ordinance that required licenses for landlords. Peoples v. Town of Speedway, Ind., No. 1:06cv1324 (S.D. Ind., filed Sept. 6, 2006).
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys obtained reversal of order, dismissing case for lack of personal jurisdiction in a commercial dispute regarding unlawful debts from a bank account by two casinos.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys prepared amicus curiae brief for insurance trade association in an appeal concerning the scope of discovery available in breach of fiduciary duty cases under ERISA. Denmark v. Liberty Life Insurance, 566 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2009).
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a capital management company in a dispute concerning the enforceability of an arbitration clause that required arbitration to occur in Guernsey. The district court granted judgment in the client’s favor, enforcing the arbitration clause and requiring arbitration. The Fifth Circuit then affirmed. 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24621.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a debt collection company in a dispute involving Plaintiffs claims that our client violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and committed Indiana state law torts for the manner in which they were contacted in attempting to collect a debt. The federal district court granted a motion to compel arbitration and no arbitration was filed.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a utility company in construction dispute with contractor involving claims of cost-overruns and details beyond the scope of the project. The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled in favor of client. Atlas Excavating v. Indiana-American Water Co., Inc., No. 41 A 01-0407-cv-3327.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented client state commission officers in defeating temporary restraining order pursuant to Younger abstention doctrine. Am. Legion - Post 330 v. Heath, No. 1:06cv390 (S.D. Ind., filed Mar. 8, 2006).
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented life insurance company in a dispute where the Plaintiff claimed fraud and breach of contract theories by alleging that she was told there would be no tax impact on a rollover of two annuities into a variable annuity. The federal district court granted summary judgment in client’s favor.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented MetLife Securities in a case that involved a claim that the insured was misinformed that a whole life insurance policy he purchased included a rider that would waive premiums if he became disabled. He subsequently suffered a disabling injury. He brought an arbitration before the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) claiming fraud and breach of contract. The panel unanimously rejected all of his claims.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented parties to probate action. On opponent's appeal of trial court’s grant of guardianship petition, the court affirmed decision in favor of our clients. Hickman v. Hickman (In re Hickman), No. 53A01-0211-CV-446 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented Rieth-Riley in Board of Commissioners' appeal of declaratory judgment that zoning ordinance was invalid and mandate that the board approve the developer's plan; court affirmed lower court's ruling. Hendricks County Bd. of Comm'rs v. Rieth-Riley Constr. Co., No. 32A05-0610-CV-585 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented Simon in appeal involving lease dispute; lower court granted summary judgment for Simon, and granted Michigan Sporting Goods' (tenant's) motion to correct error; court upheld lower court's decision to grant motion to correct error. Simon Prop. Group, L.P. v. Michigan Sporting Goods Distribs., No. 79A02-0411-CV-989 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented the Indiana Association of County Commissioners as amicus counsel in a case where the Indiana Supreme Court reversed an unfavorable ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals against the Fayette County Board of Commissioners. The county highway supervisor filed a lawsuit seeking judicial review of the county's decision to terminate his employment. Both the trial court and Court of Appeals found the county's termination decision was a quasi-judicial function, thereby permitting judicial review. If the decision stood, the practical effect would require judicial review of virtually every employment decision made by county commissioners regarding county employees. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' ruling and found that Fayette County's employment decision was administrative and ministerial, not quasi-judicial, and therefore not subject to judicial review. Mark Crandley presented the oral argument on behalf of the IACC as amicus.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) in a case prevailing against Monroe County, Indiana. The county enacted a "noise ordinance" aimed at an INDOT contractor working on the I-69 extension through Monroe County. The ordinance could have halted night work and resulted in approximately $10 million in additional costs to the state due to completion delays. After a hearing lasting several hours, the client secured a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the ordinance before Judge David Dreyer in Marion Superior Court. Following the court's decision, the Monroe County Commissioners amended their ordinance to exempt state agencies and their contractors, essentially mooting the INDOT lawsuit.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented the Town of Fishers in a matter that involved the Town of Fishers enacting ordinances initiating a merger with a township that would create a new city. A group of residents challenged this merger in federal court under Section 1983 as a violation of their voting rights and their right to equal protection. The plaintiffs also alleged that the merger violated Indiana state law. After the federal district court dismissed the federal claims, the court certified the state law issues to the Indiana Supreme Court, which rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments and upheld the merger under Indiana law. 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44176.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys successfully represented client Patriotic Veterans, Inc. in a case involving automatic political calls in Indiana in front of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The court granted Patriotic Veterans' motion for a permanent injunction that would prohibit the State of Indiana from taking action against them. Patriotic Veterans, an Illinois-based nonprofit, educates voters on issues that interest veterans and the positions taken by candidates. The court decided that automatic political calls cannot be banned in Indiana due to federal preemption. The matter is currently pending before the Seventh Circuit.
  • Barnes & Thornburg represented a major managed health care company and obtained reversal of summary judgment as to insurance coverage for claims against client in complex, multiple-layer insurance arrangement.
  • Barnes & Thornburg represented the Town of Fishers in an action by several residents to enjoin the construction of a sports park. The plaintiffs challenged the park in the zoning process but, after receiving an adverse ruling, did not appeal the zoning decision. Instead, the plaintiffs sued in federal court under Section 1983, alleging various constitutional violations. The plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. The Town of Fishers filed an immediate motion to dismiss arguing that the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs had voluntarily failed to exhaust their state zoning appeal remedies. After an evidentiary hearing, the court denied the preliminary injunction and dismissed the case in its entirety. Peterson v. Town of Fishers, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73260 (S.D. Ind. 2008).
  • Days before the November 2008 election, the plaintiff sought an injunction preventing an issue from going on the ballot regarding the removal of the local water utility from the jurisdiction of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. The trial court denied the injunction and dismissed. Manigault v. St. Joseph Election Board et al.
  • In an issue of first impression, a unanimous Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of an attempt to halt a multi-million dollar, environmentally friendly power plant project to be built by the City of Logansport. The plant involves private financing and will be governed by a public-private agreement between Logansport and a group of private backers. The court's opinion addressed an issue of first impression regarding the operation of Indiana's statutes governing how cities and towns may enter into these types of public-private agreements. Challengers to the project argued Logansport failed to take several steps they believed the statutes required of the City before entering into the agreement. The court's 5-0 opinion rejected those claims and affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, finding for the first time that Indiana's municipalities have broad power to enter into the type of agreement Logansport negotiated without the procedural limitations challengers sought to impose.
  • Served as lead counsel for Zionsville, Indiana, in its efforts to merge with Perry Township and defended the merger against litigation filed by the town of Whitestown. The Indiana Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the merger.
  • SunCoke and Middletown prevailed in a citizen suit designed to enjoin construction of a state-of-the-art Coke Plant that would provide dozens of high paying jobs in Middletown Ohio and help secure hundreds of existing jobs at the AK Steel plant located there. The Southern District of Ohio dismissed the plaintiff’s (the City of Monroe) claims on abstention grounds reasoning that air permitting and air permit appeals were the jurisdiction of the appropriate Ohio administrative agencies not the Federal District Court. Monroe appealed this decision to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled the appeal moot and remanded back to the District Court because SunCoke had obtained a major source air permit in the intervening months.



    The plaintifff then filed a motion for attorneys and expert fees and costs. The district court denied that motion and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. In addition to saving the client hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees and costs and preventing further costly discovery, the opinion establishes good law for industry clients defending Clean Air Act citizen suits. The decision reaffirms that permitting and permit appeals are the proper jurisdiction of state agencies who were delegated power by the USEPA under the Clean Air Act. The decision also stands for the proposition that plaintiff's should not be awarded fees and costs under the Clean Air Act without evidence they have prevailed on the merits in a case.
  • SunCoke and Middletown sought a Clean Air Act permit from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency for the construction of a state-of-the-art Coke Plant that would provide dozens of high paying jobs in Middletown Ohio and help secure hundreds of existing jobs at the AK Steel plant located there. The plaintiffs then appealed that decision to an adminsitrative body that hears air permitting decisions. That body dismissed the permit appeal as moot and the plaintiffs appealed to the Ohio Court of Appeals. After oral argument on the issues, that Court affirmed the dismissal and agreed with our clients that the matter was moot.
  • The firm obtained dismissal of almost every claim against firm client Kenda Tires in a nationwide class action pending in the Southern District of Indiana. The plaintiff class alleged that thousands of high-end golf carts and all-terrain vehicles were rendered defective by faulty Kenda tires. The proposed class included more than 9,500 vehicles and a total exposure of more than $4 million. In an opinion that reconciled conflicting federal and state cases, the district court dismissed all but one warranty claim against Kenda on privity grounds. The district court also dismissed a claim under the consumer protection statutes of Indiana and several other states. The district court found that those claims were essentially fraud claims and must be pled with particularly. The court also held that the class complaint could not show that the named plaintiff actually relied on any statement by Kenda and therefore could not satisfy the reliance element necessary for a fraud claim.
  • The Indiana Supreme Court denied a petition to transfer jurisdiction in a class-action suit over medical records fees involving firm client HealthPort Technologies, LLC, a medical records company based in Georgia. In 2014, Garrison Law Firm, a personal injury firm in Indianapolis, requested copies of several of its clients' medical records from a health care provider, who outsourced the services to HealthPort. After conducting a search, HealthPort did not locate any records and thus had nothing to produce to Garrison. HealthPort sent Garrison a $20 invoice to cover the labor costs incurred responding to each request, which Garrison paid. In August 2014, Garrison filed a class-action complaint against HealthPort alleging that the $20 labor fees violated Indiana law as part of a coordinated effort by several plaintiffs' firms that filed multiple class-action complaints against HealthPort in numerous states under similar theories. After deciding to make a stand in Indiana, HealthPort prevailed at the Indiana Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court and ordered it to enter judgment in HealthPort’s favor on all of Garrison’s claims. The Indiana Supreme Court then denied Garrison's petition to transfer jurisdiction, effectively closing the issue in Indiana. HealthPort Techs., LLC v. Garrison Law Firm, LLC, 51 N.E.3d 1236 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
  • The Marion County Prosecutor’s Office served a subpoena on The Indianapolis Star (The Star) seeking a news reporter’s notes of an interview with a suspect in a murder case. The Star moved to quash the subpoena, based on Indiana’s Reporter Shield Law, which prevents the compelled production of information about a source of a news story. The Star also objected to the subpoena on the ground of relevance, because the suspect had already been interviewed by the police and charged before the return date on the subpoena. The motion was argued before Judge Steven R. Eichholtz, who issued an order quashing the subpoena.
  • The National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) challenged a Clean Air Act permit issued to our client, Central Indiana Ethanol Inc., on the grounds that an Indiana state statute and regulation violated the Act. Both the Office of Environmental Appeals and the trial court disagreed, holding that Indiana law allowed our client to receive its permit. The matter is now pending before the Indiana Supreme Court.
  • The Supreme Court examined the scope of remedies available for a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. Th.e firm represented ACLI in filing an amicus brief supporting the employer’s position that the plaintiff could not obtain tort-like remedies under ERISA. LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, 552 U.S. 248 (2008)
INSIGHTS & EVENTS
Trending Connect
We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to use cookies.