Liana Maricel Ortega Urdaneta, Appellant-Petitioner v. Carmax Auto Superstores, Inc., et.al., Appellees-Respondents (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Liana Urdaneta appeals the dismissal of her request for the trial court to intervene in arbitration proceedings with the American Arbitration Association (AAA). But a month before the court dismissed the request, the arbitrator issued a final decision, bringing the arbitration proceedings to a close. That closure rendered moot Urdaneta's request for judicial intervention and, by extension, this appeal. Urdaneta's appeal must therefore be dismissed as moot.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In August 2025, Urdaneta filed a demand for arbitration with the AAA against CarMax Auto Superstores Inc. (CarMax) and Assurant Inc. d/b/a MaxCare (MaxCare).¹ The dispute involved breach of contract and warranty claims related to a vehicle Urdaneta purchased from CarMax and for which MaxCare issued a service contract. After CarMax moved to dismiss the arbitration proceedings, Urdaneta filed a pro se motion in an Indiana state court asking the judge to intervene, stay the arbitration proceedings, and prohibit the arbitrator from ruling on the motion to dismiss before it ruled on other motions seeking “emergency relief.” Appellant's Supplemental Appendix at 8.

[3] CarMax and MaxCare both moved to dismiss Urdaneta's request for judicial intervention, arguing in part that the trial court lacked authority to intervene in ongoing arbitration proceedings. On March 16, 2026, before the trial court ruled on the dismissal motions, the arbitrator entered a final decision dismissing Urdaneta's claims and closing the arbitration proceedings. A month later, on April 14, the court dismissed Urdaneta's request for judicial intervention with prejudice.

[4] Urdaneta filed a notice of appeal of the trial court's decision on April 15, 2026. On June 15, while this appeal was pending, she filed an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana seeking to vacate the arbitrator's final decision. Three days later, Urdaneta filed her opening brief in this appeal, arguing the state court's dismissal of her request for judicial intervention was procedurally improper in numerous respects. On cross-appeal, MaxCare asserted Urdaneta's appellate arguments were moot, given that arbitration had already concluded and “there is nothing left in this case to be resolved ․” MaxCare's Brief at 6. CarMax raised a similar argument in its brief, asserting that Urdaneta's request for judicial intervention is moot because “there is no arbitration proceeding into which the trial court can intervene.” CarMax's Amended Br. at 11.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Our Supreme Court has long instructed “that a case is deemed moot when no effective relief can be rendered to the parties before the court.” Thomas v. Foyst, 260 N.E.3d 887, 895 (Ind. 2025) (quoting In re Lawrance, 579 N.E.2d 32, 37 (Ind. 1991)). Here, we agree with CarMax and MaxCare that the trial court cannot intervene in arbitration proceedings which have already been concluded. As such, there is no effective relief that can be rendered in this action, and the appeal must be dismissed. See Lawrance, 579 N.E.2d at 37 (“When the concrete controversy at issue in a case ‘has been ended or settled, or in some manner disposed of, so as to render it unnecessary to decide the question involved,’ the case will be dismissed.”) (quoting Dunn v. State, 71 N.E. 890, 891 (Ind. 1904)).

[6] Urdaneta's argument to avoid dismissal of the appeal is not persuasive. She contends this Court can grant effective relief by reversing the trial court's order of dismissal on procedural grounds and remanding for the court to rule on the merits of her request. But Urdaneta does not contend with the fact that the sole relief requested below was an emergency intervention in arbitration proceedings which have now concluded. To the extent Urdaneta seeks relief from the arbitrator's final decision, she has filed a separate action to vacate it in federal court. While we express no opinion on what relief the federal court may be able to provide Urdaneta, there simply is no longer a concrete controversy to be decided in the state court action.

Conclusion

[7] For these reasons, we dismiss the appeal as moot.

[8] Appeal dismissed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In its appellee's brief, MaxCare identifies itself as Consumer Program Administrators Inc., and claims it was misidentified during the proceedings below. But because it appeared before the trial court as MaxCare, we refer to it as such in this decision.

DeBoer, Judge.

Foley, J., and Felix, J., concur.