Coleman v. Smith, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-00618-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-01-2003 Opinion Author: Lee, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded in Part; Reversed and Rendered in Part |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Malicious prosecution - Statute of limitations - Section 15-1-35 - Amendment of complaint - M.R.C.P. 15 Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-22-2002 Appealed from: TUNICA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Al Smith Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT Case Number: 2001-0196 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Lorann Coleman |
LUCIUS EDWARDS
|
||
| Appellee: | hristopher Smith, Grand Casinos, Inc., BL Development Corporation, and Park Place Entertainment Corporation; | SAMMYE S. THARP JOHN H. DUNBAR WALTER ALAN DAVIS |
|
|
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: | Malicious prosecution - Statute of limitations - Section 15-1-35 - Amendment of complaint - M.R.C.P. 15 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Lorann Coleman was arrested by security personnel at the Grand Casino, her place of employment and was charged with embezzlement. After she was exonerated, she filed a complaint accusing Christopher Smith, Grand Casino, Inc., B.L. Development Corporation, and Park Place Entertainment Corporation of false and malicious arrest. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Coleman filed a motion to amend her original complaint to include the additional claims of negligence in causing her arrest, negligent infliction of emotional distress, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. The court granted the defendant’s motion and denied Coleman’s motion. Coleman appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Statute of limitations The court found that Coleman’s claims were time barred by the one year statute of limitations for false arrest. Coleman argues that the court erred in granting summary judgment, because it was her intention to state a cause of action for malicious prosecution although her complaint did not use that term. A claim for malicious prosecution falls under section 15-1-35 which establishes a one-year statute of limitations for intentional torts. A cause of action for malicious prosecution accrues on the day the criminal proceedings are terminated in the favor of the plaintiff. Coleman was exonerated on June 21, 2000, and filed her complaint on June 20, 2001, just one day before her malicious prosecution claim would have expired. Therefore, the court erred in granting summary judgment. Issue 2: Amendment of complaint Coleman argues that the court erred in denying her motion to amend her original complaint to add additional claims. Under M.R.C.P. 15, an amendment should be denied only if the amendment would cause actual prejudice to the opposing party. Because Coleman filed her motion to amend just fourteen days after the defendants filed their answer and nine days after the motion for summary judgment was filed which was well within the discovery period, there was no prejudice to the defendants and the court abused its discretion in denying the motion. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
