Full Opinion

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(E), the trial court and parties shall not take any action in reliance upon this Opinion until it is certified. IN THE Court of Appeals of Indiana FILED Oct 26 2026, 9:43 am Jean-Paul B. Kalonji, CLERK Appellant-Defendant Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court v. Burford Diesel Truck and Trailer Repair LLC, Appellee-Plaintiff October 26, 2026 Court of Appeals Case No. 26A-SC-896 Appeal from the Allen Superior Court The Honorable Michael T. Douglass, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 02D09-2307-SC-6382 Opinion by Judge Kenworthy Judges Mathias and DeBoer concur. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 26A-SC-896 | October 26, 2026 Page 1 of 8 Kenworthy, Judge. Case Summary [1] Jean-Paul B. Kalonji purports to appeal from an order of the Allen County Superior Court Small Claims Division. The order grants judgment to Plaintiff Burford Diesel Truck and Trailer Repair, LLC (“Burford”), against LaRoche Carrier, LLC (“LaRoche Carrier”), and denies LaRoche Carrier’s counterclaim against Burford. Kalonji is the owner of LaRoche Carrier and represented the company below, but the record does not show he has ever been an individual party to the action. We dismiss. Facts and Procedural History [2] On July 19, 2023, Burford filed suit in small claims court against “John LaRoche,” claiming John brought his truck to Burford for diagnostic evaluation in December 2022, but failed to pay the amount owed and never picked up the truck. A default judgment was entered against John in September 2023. [3] The default judgment was eventually set aside, and Burford filed an alias notice of claim “naming the proper party Defendant in this action.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 20. The Alias Notice of Claim named LaRoche Carrier as the only defendant. Alias Notice of Claim (filed November 14, 2024). 1 1 Kalonji filed an appendix containing the order setting aside the default judgment. The order indicates Burford would file an alias notice of claim. The appendix does not contain the actual alias notice of claim filed with the trial court. Evidence Rule 201(a)(2)(c) provides that we may take judicial notice of “records of a court of this state.” As a result, we take judicial notice of this and other relevant documents from the trial Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 26A-SC-896 | October 26, 2026 Page 2 of 8 [4] In November 2025, LaRoche Carrier filed a counterclaim against Burford, seeking return of the truck and alleging the truck was damaged while in Burford’s possession. See Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 21 (the statement of the nature of the claim begins, “Counter-Plaintiff LaRoche Carrier, LLC seeks” return of “its truck” and damages). Burford’s claim and LaRoche Carrier’s counterclaim were heard at a bench trial in December. At the beginning of that trial, the following exchange took place: THE COURT: . . . Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Burford Diesel Truck and Trailer Repair LLC, by Counsel, Mr. Jared Baker. And good afternoon again, Mr. Baker, verses [sic] the Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff, Mr. John, is it LaRoche? MR. KALONJI: No, my name is Jean-Paul Kalonji. . . . I represent LaRoche Carrier. *** MR. BAKER: I might be able to help clarify a little bit, Judge. . . . There was a default judgment entered against a John LaRoche because that was the name that we had on billing information. We later came to find out that it was actually . . . LaRoche Carrier LLC that Mr. Kalonji owns and operates and I believe there was an agreed Motion to Set Aside a Default Judgment [and] Substitute Parties into LaRoche Carrie[r]s LLC. court’s proceedings that Kalonji failed to include in his appendix. See Horton v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1154, 1162 (Ind. 2016) (taking judicial notice of trial court records). We obtained those documents through the Odyssey Case Management system. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 26A-SC-896 | October 26, 2026 Page 3 of 8 THE COURT: Okay. So, the Court, the Clerk just hasn’t done that yet? MR. BAKER: Perhaps. THE COURT: . . . [I]s that true sir? What Mr. Baker said? MR. KALONJI: Yes, sir. Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Alright, then we’ll change the Defendant. We’ll substitute, or we’ll remove John LaRoche and put LaRoche Carrier LLC. [T]hat’s what the parties would like to do? MR. BAKER: Yes. Please. MR. KALONJI: Yes, Your Honor. Tr. Vol. 2 at 5–6. [5] In March 2026, the trial court entered its judgment. The order included several findings, the first of which was that by agreement of the parties, “the Clerk of Court shall remove Defendant, John LaRoche, and add the proper party— LaRoche Carrier, LLC—as the Defendant and Counter Claim Plaintiff.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 14. 2 The trial court entered judgment for Burford and against LaRoche Carrier on Burford’s claim, determining “Burford is owed a 2 The caption of the trial court’s order remained Burford vs. John LaRoche, and the opening paragraph of the order states, “Defendant/Counter Claim Plaintiff, Jean-Paul Kalonji, appeared in person, as John LaRoche does not exist.” Id. Kalonji is not named elsewhere in the order. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 26A-SC-896 | October 26, 2026 Page 4 of 8 total balance of $6,916.34 from LaRoche.” Id. at 16. The trial court also determined LaRoche Carrier had not met its burden of proving its counterclaim. [6] On April 3, 2026, “Appellants LaRoche Carrier LLC and Jean-Paul B. Kalonji” filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s order. Id. at 22. Kalonji represented in the Notice of Appeal that he appears as both the owner and designated representative of LaRoche Carrier and “in his individual capacity as the titled owner” of the truck. Id. He claimed his “individual interests in the subject vehicle and in the outcome of this litigation are direct, personal, and independent of the LLC.” Id. at 22–23. [7] Then on May 6, 2026, Kalonji filed with this Court a “Motion to Confirm Pro Se Continuation of Appeal and to Dismiss Co-Appellant LaRoche Carrier, LLC.” In that motion, he represented that “[by] order dated June 10, 2024, the trial court added Mr. Kalonji as a party of record by agreement of the parties[,]” citing a June 10, 2024, CCS entry, and stated, “Mr. Kalonji has been a party of record from that date forward.” May 6, 2026, Motion at 1. He also represented that on November 12, 2025, “a Counterclaim was filed by both ‘Kalonji, Jean- Paul B’ and ‘LaRoche Carrier, LLC’ as counter-claim plaintiffs[,]” citing a November 18, 2025, CCS entry. Id. at 2. Finally, he stated that the trial court’s March 2026 order “entered ‘Judgment for Counter claim Defendant against Counter Claim Plaintiff[,]’” seemingly implying he was included individually as a counterclaim plaintiff. Id. Acknowledging a licensed attorney must represent LaRoche Carrier on appeal but stating he did not intend to hire one, Kalonji Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 26A-SC-896 | October 26, 2026 Page 5 of 8 requested LaRoche Carrier be dismissed from the appeal. Kalonji requested he be allowed to file his Appellant’s Brief and Appendix, arguing he has standing to prosecute the appeal in his individual capacity. Id. at 3. This Court issued an order on May 22, 2026, dismissing LaRoche Carrier as a party to the appeal and setting a briefing schedule with Kalonji as the sole appellant. 3 Kalonji lacks standing and this appeal in his individual name must be dismissed because he was not a party below. [8] Standing is “a significant restraint on the ability of Indiana courts to act, as it denies the courts any jurisdiction absent an actual injured party participating in the case.” Pence v. State, 652 N.E.2d 486, 488 (Ind. 1995). [9] To prosecute an appeal, the person considering himself aggrieved must have first been a party before the trial court. Appellate Rule 17(A) provides: “A party of record in the trial court . . . shall be a party on appeal.” The converse is also true: a person who is not a party of record in the trial court cannot become a party for the first time on appeal. Simon v. Simon, 957 N.E.2d 980, 989 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). Although a non-party may become a party on equal standing with the parties in the trial court by intervening under Trial Rule 24, there is no corresponding appellate rule allowing intervention for the first time on appeal. See id. Appellate Rule 17 limits the class of parties on appeal to parties of record in the trial court. Id. 3 Kalonji timely filed a brief. Burford has not filed an appellee’s brief. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 26A-SC-896 | October 26, 2026 Page 6 of 8 [10] In his motion to this Court, Kalonji referenced two CCS entries as showing he was a party of record in the trial court. However, the June 11, 2024, entry— reflecting an order signed on June 10—states that “an agreement has been made to add a party to the case.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 5 (emphasis added).4 As noted above, the added party was LaRoche Carrier, not Kalonji, as Kalonji himself acknowledged and affirmed at the bench trial. And the November 2025 entry states only, “Notice of Counterclaim.” Id. at 8. The counterclaim named LaRoche Carrier as the sole counterclaim plaintiff. See id. at 21. In short, the record does not support the representations Kalonji made to this Court in requesting to continue in his individual capacity. In fact, none of the documents filed in the trial court and included in the Appendix name “Jean- Paul B. Kalonji” as a party, including the trial court’s CCS. And the trial court’s judgment was entered only against LaRoche Carrier, so Kalonji is not personally aggrieved. [11] At Kalonji’s request, the party of record below and the subject of the trial court’s judgment was dismissed from this appeal. Kalonji was not a party to the trial court proceedings and has no demonstrable individual injury. He therefore lacks standing to pursue this appeal, and we lack jurisdiction to consider it. 4 The CCS reflects that Kalonji, identifying as a non-party, moved to be added as a party to the case in April 2024. Id. A hearing was apparently held on his motion on June 10, but neither the CCS entry from that hearing nor the trial court’s order from that date reflects that Kalonji was added as an individual party. Kalonji did not request a transcript of that hearing be prepared on appeal. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 26A-SC-896 | October 26, 2026 Page 7 of 8 Conclusion [12] Kalonji’s appeal is dismissed. [13] Dismissed. Mathias, J., and DeBoer, J., concur. APPELLANT PRO SE Jean-Paul B. Kalonji Fort Wayne, Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 26A-SC-896 | October 26, 2026 Page 8 of 8