“Take 5” Lawsuit

INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. (WOWO) — For most, a “Take 5” oil change is a fifteen-minute convenience. For J. Williams, a twenty-four-year-old Indiana college student, a routine service in late 2023 sparked a 600-day legal odyssey that has now reached the steps of the Indiana Supreme Court.

Williams, a Criminal Justice student and traumatic brain injury (TBI) survivor, describes a “downward spiral” that began at a Take 5 location on North Michigan Road in Hamilton County. What started as a dispute over a faulty oil change has devolved into a complex web of procedural dismissals, allegations of corporate stonewalling, and a high-stakes battle over a $10,000 engine failure.

The Service and the Mechanical Fallout

According to Williams, her 2013 Chevrolet Equinox was running perfectly with no warning lights when she arrived for service. However, within days, her oil light illuminated. After being told by technicians to simply reset the light, she eventually visited a second location where she was informed her car was nearly bone-dry—despite no visible leaks.

“The vehicle started leaking, smoking, making loud noises,” Williams recalled. “I reached out to another location in Avon… they sent me video proof that the vehicle was not leaking prior to any service.”

Williams claims that when she attempted to navigate the internal insurance process of the franchisee, Baldwin Capital Partners, LLC, she was met with a “brick wall.” She says the owner blocked her communications, stating her ten-year-old car would not be evaluated.

Ice Miller Responds: A Record of “Harassing Behavior”

In a response to these accusations, an associate at the law firm of Ice Miller representing Baldwin Capital Partners, declined to litigate the specifics of the mechanical claim in the press. Instead, the firm provided several court orders highlighting Williams’s conduct during the litigation.

Documents provided by Ice Miller reveal a pattern of judicial rebukes against Williams:

Hamilton County Emergency Order: A judge previously granted a “Verified Motion for Relief” against Williams, citing “harassing or unprofessional behavior.” The order banned Williams from contacting the defendants or their counsel via phone or email and mandated that all future proceedings be held remotely to prevent further conflict.

Appellate Dismissal & Sanctions: On September 16, 2025, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Williams’s case based on res judicata (the matter had already been judged). Crucially, the court ordered Williams to pay the defendants’ appellate attorney fees, citing “bad faith, frivolity, and harassment.”

The “Welfare Check”: The defense noted that Williams’s communications were so concerning they prompted a police welfare check. Williams, however, characterizes this as a “tactical move” to damage her reputation, noting she was released from a hospital evaluation within an hour.

The Rebuttal: “Desperation, Not Malice”

Williams issued a detailed rebuttal to Ice Miller’s focus on her procedural history. She argues the defense is using her “pro se” status and past emotional distress to distract from the fact that her engine failed under their care.

“The defense’s decision to lead with procedural dismissals rather than addressing the mechanical facts was entirely expected,” Williams stated. She maintains that while the courts have focused on her “procedural errors,” they have never refuted the physical evidence of the catastrophic engine failure.

Regarding the allegations of harassment, Williams pointed to the “extreme emotional and financial distress” of losing her only transportation while recovering from a TBI. “My alleged words at that time reflected extreme desperation and a mental health crisis brought on by financial ruin, not a desire to actually harm anyone,” she said. “If that were the case, those emails would have landed me behind bars.”

A Pattern of Complaints

Williams is not alone in her frustration. A public records request to the Indiana Attorney General’s Office confirmed twenty-three 23 consumer complaints related to “Baldwin Capital Partners, LLC” and “Take 5 Oil Change” in Indiana. Her research suggests the firm has been sued over a dozen times across the state with similar stories of mechanical failure and corporate “stonewalling.”

The Road to the Supreme Court

The case is now before the Indiana Supreme Court, with Chief Justice Loretta Rush recently granting a belated filing for Williams’s petition to transfer. Williams notes a shift in the defense’s language in their latest filings, pivoting from treating certain points as “factual” to “alleged.”

For Williams, the cost of this battle has been more than just the value of her car. The financial drain forced her to pause her TBI treatments, junk her vehicle, and rely on rideshares to attend classes.

“This is the moment to force their representatives to stand on actual principles,” Williams said. “When a consumer cannot afford a high-priced attorney to fight a $10,000 claim, the system often defaults to the party with the most paperwork, not necessarily the party with the truth.”

The Indiana Supreme Court will now determine if the case warrants a further look, potentially providing a final answer to a 600-day dispute that has tested the limits of Indiana’s small claims system.

The post “Take 5” Lawsuit appeared first on WOWO News/Talk 92.3 FM and 1190 AM.