Wal-Mart Super Ctr., et al. v. Long
| Docket Number: | 2001-IA-01372-SCT Linked Case(s): 2001-IA-01372-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-26-2003 Opinion Author: Pittman, C.J. Holding: Affirmed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Amendment of complaint - M.R.C.P. 15 - Actual prejudice - Transfer of case - Section 9-9-21 Judge(s) Concurring: McRae, P.J., Waller, Diaz, Easley, Carlson and Graves, JJ. Dissenting Author : Smith, P.J. Dissent Joined By : Cobb, J. Procedural History: Interlocutory Appeal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-21-2001 Appealed from: LEE COUNTY COURT Judge: James B. Floyd, III Disposition: Granted leave to amend and transferred the case to the circuit court. Case Number: CV01-215-(B)L |
|
| Note: | No real judgment, the trial court only granted a Leave to Amend, so that the P could amend her complaint. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Wal-Mart Super Center and Besam, Inc. |
W. O. LUCKETT, JR.
ROBERT M. TYNER, JR.
J. KEITH PEARSON |
||
| Appellee: | Eva Long | LEROY D. PERCY GRAY TOLLISON GARY L. CARNATHAN |
|
|
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 - Amendment of complaint - M.R.C.P. 15 - Actual prejudice - Transfer of case - Section 9-9-21 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Eva Long filed a complaint in the County Court of Lee County against Wal-Mart Super Center seeking $75,000 for injuries she suffered in an accident involving a mechanical door. Over a year later, she requested leave to increase the ad damnum clause from $75,000 to $750,000; to transfer jurisdiction to the circuit court; and to add additional defendants. The court granted leave to amend and transferred the case to circuit court. The Supreme Court granted defendants permission to file an interlocutory appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Amendment of complaint Wal-Mart argues that it suffered actual prejudice after Long was allowed to amend her complaint, because they may not now seek removal to federal court since the one-year deadline has expired. M.R.C.P. 15 requires leave to amend to be freely granted whenever justice so requires and denied only if the amendments would cause actual prejudice to the opposite party. Wal-Mart’s argument is premised on the fact that, as originally filed, the case was not removable. Wal-Mart could have sought removal. If defense counsel believes that the damages are in excess of the jurisdictional limit, the defendant can have the case properly removed utilizing state court discovery rules. Had Wal-Mart been more diligent, Long would have been required to stipulate whether the amount in controversy would exceed $75,000. In addition, the Fifth Circuit has developed its own methods for policing forum manipulation. Therefore, the amended complaint does not cause Wal-Mart to suffer actual prejudice. Issue 2: Transfer Wal-Mart argues that under section 9-9-21, county courts do not have the authority to transfer a case to circuit courts by granting an amendment that effectively divests itself of jurisdiction. A county court’s authority to grant an amendment even though by doing so it will divest itself of jurisdiction and require the matter to be transferred to either the chancery or circuit courts is incidental to M.R.C.P. 15's policy to freely allow leave to amend and in accordance with the policy to provide complete remedy. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
