claims court erred by dismissing the Club's action on public policy grounds. We conclude that the Club's complaint states a claim for fraud against the Minors and is sufficient to survive an Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(6) challenge. This matter may become appropriate for summary judgment. However, at this stage of the proceedings, looking at the complaint in the light most favorable to the Club with every inference drawn in its favor, we must conclude that the allegations in the Club's complaint state a claim upon which relief may be granted and we cannot say that the Club's action is barred by public policy. Consequently, the small claims court erred by granting the Minors' motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Civil Rights Comm'n v. County Line Park, Inc., 738 N.E.2d 1044, 1050-1051 (Ind.2000) (<HOLDING>). For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the
holding that the trial court did not err by granting defendants motion for summary judgment holding that a trial court erred in granting a defendants motion to mitigate where the defendants original sentence was imposed pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement holding that the trial court erred by granting the defendants motion to dismiss holding that the court implicitly denied the plaintiffs motion to strike certain submissions because the court in its opinion granting defendants motion to dismiss relied on defendants materials holding that a trial court may rescind an order granting defendants motion for new trial within 75dayperiod allowed for ruling on the defendants motion