Chalk, et al. v. Bertholf
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-01627-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CA-01627-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-17-2007 Opinion Author: MYERS, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Slander - Conversion of motion - M.R.C.P. 56 - M.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) - Dismissal - M.R.C.P. 8 Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, ISHEE, AND CARLTON, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): ROBERTS, J. Dissenting Author : GRIFFIS, J. Dissent Joined By : LEE, P.J.; BARNES, J. JOINS IN PART Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-09-2005 Appealed from: Lauderdale County Circuit Court Judge: Clarence E. Morgan, III Disposition: COMPLAINT DISMISSED Case Number: 03-CV-094(R) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | FRANKLIN E. CHALK, FREDERICK D. FEINSTEIN, ROY A. GRAHAM, BILLY JOE GRESSETT,
DONALD E. JONES, LANGFORD L. KNIGHT, F.
GREGORY MALTA, WILLIAM F. PARTEN,
ROBERT E. PIERCE, ROGER E. SHIRLEY,
CHARLES F. SPEED AND AARON K. WILSON |
J. STEWART PARRISH |
||
| Appellee: | DAVID J. BERTHOLF AND JOE H. BRYANT, JR. | WAYNE E. FERRELL |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Slander - Conversion of motion - M.R.C.P. 56 - M.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) - Dismissal - M.R.C.P. 8 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Franklin Chalk, Frederick Feinstein, Roy Graham, Billy Joe Gressett, Donald Jones, Langford Knight, F. Gregory Malta, William Parten, Robert Pierce, Roger Shirley, Charles Speed, and Aaron Wilson filed a complaint against David Bertholf and Joe Bryant, Jr. alleging slander. The plaintiffs alleged that Bertholf and Bryant published slanderous statements against them on a radio talk show program. However, the plaintiffs’ complaint failed to include the language of the alleged slander or the substance of the words used against them. Bertholf and Bryant moved for summary judgment. A hearing was held on the matter and the circuit court converted the motion for summary judgment into a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, ruling in favor of Bertholf and Bryant. However, the entry of dismissal was stayed for a period of thirty days in order to allow the plaintiffs time to amend their complaint to include more specificity as to which statements they alleged to be slanderous, information as to how the statements were slanderous and to whom the statements were directed. The plaintiffs failed to amend their complaint before the expiration of the thirty day period of leave, and the circuit court dismissed their cause of action with prejudice. The plaintiffs appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Conversion of motion The plaintiffs argue that the court erred in converting the motion for summary judgment into a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) because the trial judge considered evidence outside of the pleadings and because during the motion hearing on the matter, the court heard live testimony and admitted into evidence a transcript and tape recordings from the radio talk show. Under Rule 12(b)(6), where matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, a motion to dismiss must be treated as one for summary judgment. Conversely, where matters outside the pleadings have been excluded by the trial court, review may proceed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). In this case, there is no evidence that the court considered anything outside the pleadings. The trial court order indicates that the court excluded the only evidence introduced at the motion hearing, the transcript of the talk show, because the completeness of the evidence was not substantiated. A circuit court does not err by limiting its ruling on a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment to the four corners of the complaint, excluding all other matters introduced, and dismissing the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Issue 2: Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal The plaintiffs argue that the court erred in ruling that their complaint lacked sufficient details in order to survive a motion for dismissal, because the purpose of M.R.C.P. 8 is to give notice of the claims, and the pleading of the specific facts upon which the claims will be proved is not required. Rule 8 only requires a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. When a complaint is reviewed for sufficiency under Rule 12(b)(6), the review is limited only to the face of the pleading. Conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice to defeat a motion to dismiss. In order to bring a claim for defamation, the words used must have been clearly directed at the plaintiff and the defamation must be clear and unmistakable from the words themselves and not the product of innuendo, speculation or conjecture. While the use of discovery tools becomes helpful to a defendant in developing his defense, a defendant must be able to ascertain from the outset of the litigation the circumstances, occurrences and events of his conduct that form the basis of the suit against him. Mississippi federal courts have found that Mississippi law requires that a complaint for defamation must provide allegations of sufficient particularity so as to give the defendant or defendants notice of the nature of the complained-of statements. In this case, the complaint failed to specify which of the twelve plaintiffs was slandered by which of the two defendants, and the complaint failed to set forth the statements, paraphrased or verbatim, that constituted slander. Without setting forth any information in the complaint regarding the statements, to whom the statements were directed, by whom the statements were made, and how the statements were slanderous, the allegation that defendants made ‘slanderous statements’ constitutes a bare legal conclusion with no support in the complaint. Because the complaint did not contain any information as to the substance or effect of the statements with which the plaintiffs allege they were slandered, Bertholf and Bryant were left with approximately two hours worth of radio air time to analyze and attempt to guess which parts of the radio show the plaintiffs alleged slanderous in order to begin their defense. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
