Penn Nat. Gaming, Inc. v. Ratliff, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2005-IA-01703-SCT Linked Case(s): 2005-IA-01703-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-19-2007 Opinion Author: WALLER, P.J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Piercing the corporate veil - M.R.C.P. 8(a) - M.R.C.P. 12(b) - Transfer of venue Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., COBB, P.J., EASLEY, CARLSON, AND RANDOLPH, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): DIAZ, GRAVES AND DICKINSON, JJ. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-17-2005 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Winston Kidd Disposition: Court denied Appellant's Motion to Dismiss & its Motion to Transfer Venue |
|
| Note: | This is a Motion for Rehearing. This opinion has been substituted for the prior opinion. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | PENN NATIONAL GAMING, INC. |
JOHN C. HALL, II
ROBERT L. GIBBS |
||
| Appellee: | JEFF RATLIFF, INDIVIDUALLY, AS NATURAL SON OF EVADINE RATLIFF AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF EVADINE RATLIFF, DECEASED; CLYDE H. RATLIFF, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS HUSBAND OF EVADINE RATLIFF, DECEASED; AND JACKIE RATLIFF BARTLETT, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS NATURAL DAUGHTER OF EVADINE RATLIFF, DECEASED | WAYNE E. FERRELL, JR. |
|
|
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: | Personal injury - Piercing the corporate veil - M.R.C.P. 8(a) - M.R.C.P. 12(b) - Transfer of venue |
| Summary of the Facts: | The motion for rehearing is granted, and this opinion is substituted for the prior opinion. After being involved in an automobile accident with an intoxicated driver, Evadine Ratliff and her husband, Clyde Ratliff, filed suit in Hinds County against BSL, the Mississippi corporation that owns and operates Casino Magic, BSL employee Danny McManus, and the parent company of BSL, Penn National Gaming, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation headquartered in Wyomissing, Pennsylvania. They allege that Vaughn was negligently served alcoholic beverages by the Casino Magic-Bay St. Louis casino in violation of this state’s dram shop law. BSL and McManus moved to have the cause transferred to Hancock County. Penn National joined in the venue motion and filed a separate motion to dismiss. The court denied both motions. The Supreme Court granted the defendants’ petitions for interlocutory appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Piercing the corporate veil The Ratliffs’ complaint alleges that Casino Magic and its employee McManus violated this state’s prohibition of the sale of alcoholic beverages to persons who are visibly intoxicated. However, the prohibition in Mississippi’s dram shop statute creates liability for the permit holder and any employees of the permit holder. Penn National, as the sole shareholder of permit-holder BSL, is neither. The retail alcohol permit is a privilege granted by the state, held by the permittee, and cannot be transferred without the written consent of the State Tax Commission. As such, it cannot be attributed to a lawfully distinct corporate entity. The Ratliffs nevertheless argue that Penn National is vicariously liable for the actions of the casino’s staff because the parent company sets the policies of the casino and is involved in its daily operations. This claim amounts to an allegation that BSL is merely the alter ego of Penn National. The corporate entity will not be disregarded in contract claims unless the complaining party can demonstrate some frustration of expectations regarding the party to whom he looked for performance; the flagrant disregard of corporate formalities by the defendant corporation and its principals; and a demonstration of fraud or other equivalent misfeasance on the part of the corporate shareholder. Precedent from other jurisdictions suggests that the same basic standard should apply to tort claims. The corporate veil will not be pierced, in either contract or tort claims, except where there is some abuse of the corporate form itself. Pleadings under M.R.C.P. 8(a) must contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment for the relief to which he deems himself entitled. At most, the Ratliffs’ complaint alleges that Penn National owns the Casino Magic casino, which Penn National denies in its answer to the complaint. Because they have failed to allege all of the material elements necessary to justify disregarding the corporate form, the Ratliffs have not asserted a viable claim against Penn National as required by M.R.C.P. 12(b). The trial court therefore erred in denying Penn National’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted, and Penn National must be dismissed without prejudice. Issue 2: Transfer of venue When a resident defendant on whom venue is based is dismissed from the suit, venue is proper for the remaining defendants only where the action was begun in good faith in the bona fide belief that plaintiff had a cause of action against the resident defendant; the joinder of the local defendant was not fraudulent or frivolous, with the intention of depriving the non-resident defendant of his right to be sued in his own county; and there was a reasonable claim of liability asserted against the resident defendant. The threshold inquiry therefore is whether Penn National may be deemed a resident defendant. Because the Ratliffs have failed to plead facts sufficient to state a claim against Penn National, their claim is unreasonable. Therefore, the court erred in denying the motion to transfer venue. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
