Myatt v. Peco Foods of Miss., Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-01824-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-10-2009 Opinion Author: BARNES, J. Holding: APPEAL DISMISSED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wrongful death - M.R.C.P. 54(b) certification - Standing Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., GRIFFIS, ISHEE AND MAXWELL, JJ. Dissenting Author : IRVING AND CARLTON, JJ., without separate written opinion. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: ROBERTS, J. WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-17-2007 Appealed from: NESHOBA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Marcus D. Gordon Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT PECO FOODS OF MISSISSIPPI, INC. Case Number: 06-CV-0217-NS-G |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | PATRICIA MYATT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL WRONGFUL DEATH
BENEFICIARIES OF TODD DAVID MYATT,
DECEASED |
JAMES ASHLEY OGDEN |
|
|
| Appellee: | PECO FOODS OF MISSISSIPPI, INC. AND WINSTON BAILEY | SHELDON G. ALSTON, JONATHAN ROBERT WERNE | ||
| Appellee #2: | ||||
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: | Wrongful death - M.R.C.P. 54(b) certification - Standing |
| Summary of the Facts: | Patricia Myatt filed a wrongful death action against Peco Foods of Mississippi, Inc., Winston Bailey, Griffin Industries, Inc. (Bailey's employee), and John Does 1-5. The complaint alleged that the defendants, independently and in conjunction with one another, caused and/or contributed to the death of Todd Myatt. Peco filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motion and entered a final judgment certified in accordance with M.R.C.P. 54(b). Patricia appeals. Bailey has filed an appeal contesting the trial court’s entry of a Rule 54(b) final judgment for Peco. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Bailey argues that the dismissal of Peco from the case pursuant to M.R.C.P. 54(b) was improper. Although Bailey is a defendant in the underlying suit, he is not a party to the 54(b) judgment. Bailey does not have standing to appeal the 54(b) judgment as there is no evidence that he has a considerable stake in the outcome of this appeal. While he argues that the entry of final judgment certified under Rule 54(b) would prejudice his defense in future proceedings, he has not shown what this prejudice might be. The intent of a Rule 54(b) judgment is to ease the burdens associated with complex litigation and to allow parties whose liability in such cases has been adjudicated to reach a final resolution without undue delay. The supreme court has advised the trial court not to issue a Rule 54(b) certification unless the remainder of the case is going to be inordinately delayed, and it would be especially inequitable to require a party to wait until the entire case is tried before permitting him to appeal. In this case, the court's order for final judgment, which was prepared by counsel for Peco and entered by the trial judge, contained the Rule 54(b) language that there was “no just reason for delay.” The order did not contain any analysis or rationale for this conclusion. The supreme court has said that unless the reason the judgment was granted is clear from the record, the court will not search for a justification, but will vacate the appeal. Here, the record does not support the trial court’s entry of the Rule 54(b) judgment. There would not have been an inordinate delay in the trial proceedings if the trial court had not entered the Rule 54(b) certification. The trial date was set for only five weeks after the entry of the summary judgment in favor of Peco. Additionally, the underlying facts and the relationship of the claims involved were also factors against the entry of a Rule 54(b) judgment. If there is a commonality of operative facts which underlies the claims and defenses of a case, Rule 54(b) certification is not warranted. It was the combined acts of Peco and Bailey which allegedly contributed to the undivided injury which resulted in Myatt’s death. Therefore, a Rule 54(b) certification in favor of Peco was inappropriate. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
