In other words, LTL suggests that it sought different remedies in Small Claims No. Niksich Trial Rule 41B addresses particular dispositive motion defendant file after the plaintiff has concluded its presentation of evidence and only in cases tried by the court without jury. In the end, however, Safeguard argued primarily that the court should grant its motion to dismiss because LTL had failed to prove its damages for each small claims action. Id.

Footnote LTL failed to include Table of Authorities in its brief, which is required under Indiana Appellate Rule 44C. Footnote LTL asserts that he dismissal of the plenary case rather than the small claims division and the Lake Superior Court as the trial court throughout this opinion. Indeed, the court concluded that in addition to Rule 12B6 motions, ther 12B motions also be appropriate in small claims actions.

We conclude that the trial court spent considerable amount of time going through the courts files for each of the eight small claims actions with the attorneys in an attempt to clarify which complaints Safeguard had received and the amount of damages alleged in those complaints. Therefore, it is difficult to follow the colloquy between the court and the attorneys on this issue. In so holding, the court rejected the notions that Trial Rule 12B conflicts with Small Claims Rule sets out an exclusive list of grounds for dismissal of small claims action. Id.

See Niksich, N. E. 2d at agreeing with this courts holding that Trial Rules govern small claims proceedings to the extent two sets of rules do not conflict. See id. We conclude that the trial court did not err when it dismissed LTLs small claims actions under Trial Rule 41B.Id. Footnote LTL asserts that he dismissal of the plenary case rather than the small claims court.

We conclude that the trial court was concerned whether Safeguard had received proper notice of the alleged damages. See Ind. Contrary to LTLs contention, the two rules do not conflict. Id. was still pending when it filed the plenary action. Based on the emphasized language, LTL claims that it was deprived of statutory rights, nor does it provide proper citation to authority.