ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                        ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES
Timothy Hoffman                                               Scott M. Cohen
Sanchez & Daniels                                             John D. Barker
Chicago, Illinois                                             Krohn & Moss, LTD
                                                              Chicago, Illinois
______________________________________________________________________________

                                              In the
                               Indiana Supreme Court
                              _________________________________

                                     No. 66S03-0512-CV-625
DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION,                                          Appellant (Defendant below),

                                                  v.
TINA WAGNER AND DARRIN WAGNER,                        Appellees (Plaintiffs below).
                      _________________________________

                    Appeal from the Pulaski County Court, No. 66D01-0312-PL-015
                              The Honorable Patrick Blankenship, Judge
                               _________________________________

     On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 66A03-0406-CV-300
                          _________________________________

                                         December 7, 2005

Dickson, Justice.


       This appeal presents the same procedural issue that we address today in Daimler Chrysler
Corporation v. Yaeger, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. 2005). As in Yaeger, the defendants sought to ap-
peal from the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, but failed to
seek trial court certification authorizing it to appeal from the interlocutory order as required by
Indiana Appellate Rule 14(B). The plaintiffs, Tina Wagner and Darrin Wagner, filed a motion
to dismiss the appeal, asserting failure to comply with Rule 14(B), but the Court of Appeals, in a
memorandum decision, denied the motion and considered the appeal, expressly following the
reasoning of the majority in the Court of Appeals opinion in Yaeger. In accord with our opinion
issued today in Yaeger, we now grant transfer and dismiss this appeal.
       This appeal is dismissed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court.


Shepard, C.J., and Sullivan, Boehm, and Rucker, JJ., concur.




                                                2
