Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowThe founding shareholders of the Indianapolis law firm Ciyou & Dixon are continuing a back-and-forth in court, with each side changing positions over the dissolution of their nearly 30-year-old legal partnership.
Neither Kevin Tharp of Riley Bennett Elgoff LLP, representing attorney and shareholder Julie Dixon, nor Kenneth Munson of Hoover Hull Turner LLP, representing attorney and shareholder Bryan Ciyou, responded to a request for comment.
Dixon filed a petition in June 2022 in Marion Superior Court to dissolve the professional corporation of Ciyou & Dixon P.C. The document in Julie c. Dixon v. Ciyou & Dixon, P.c. and Bryan L. Ciyou, 49D01-2206-PL-020359, identified her and Ciyou as each owning 50% of the firm’s capital stock.
Also, the filing stated the two shareholders are deadlocked regarding the management of the firm and that the firm was suffering “irreparable injury.”
Shortly after the petition was filed, Tharp released a statement saying the parties were expected to sign an agreement that would settle the dispute out of court.
No settlement was reached and Ciyou filed a response in July opposing Dixon’s petition and demanding a jury trial. Yet, at the end of August, he filed a motion to amend his answer and agreed a deadlock did exist that was causing the firm “irreparable injury.”
Ciyou then requested the court enter an order dissolving Ciyou & Dixon.
The online docket shows the attorneys appeared and updated the court on their settlement discussions on Sept. 6. Marion Superior Court subsequently scheduled a status conference for Sept. 26.
However, Friday, Dixon filed an objection to Ciyou’s amended answer. She told the court she has claims for damages against Ciyou which have not been filed because the parties continue to engage in “meaningful settlement negotiations.”
Dixon requested until Sept. 26 to file her motion for leave to amend her petition. She argued if the court rules before she can file her claims for damages, the judgment may bar her claims under the doctrine of res judicata.
“Substantial justice requires that Dixon be permitted to file her claims for damages before Judgment is entered dissolving the Firm,” the objection states.
As of IL deadline, the court has not ruled on either Ciyou’s motion to amend his answer or Dixon’s objection.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.