Onnam Biloxi, LLC v. RAS Family Partners, LP
| Docket Number: | 2006-IA-01414-SCT Linked Case(s): 2006-IA-01414-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-15-2007 Opinion Author: Diaz, P.J. Holding: 2006-IA-01414-SCT: Affirmed and Remanded; 2006-IA-00976-SCT: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Priority jurisdiction - M.R.C.P. 4(h) - M.R.C.P. 15(c) Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Easley, Carlson, Graves, Randolph and Lamar, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Dickinson, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-28-2006 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Stephen Simpson Disposition: The circuit court denied the motion to transfer and reverse the chancery court’s order denying the motion to transfer. |
|
| Consolidated: Consolidated with 2006-IA-00976-SCT; RAS Family Partners, LP and Ray A. Sims v. Onnam Biloxi, LLC; Harrison Chancery Court 2nd District; LC Case #: 2402-06-61-(1); Ruling Date: 05/22/2006; Ruling Judge: James Persons. | ||
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | ONNAM BILOXI, LLC |
JOHN G. CORLEW,
MEGAN MARTHINE BARBER CONNER,
KATHERINE A. SMITH |
|
|
| Appellee: | RAS FAMILY PARTNERS, LP AND RAY A. SIMS | LAWRENCE CARY GUNN | ||
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: | Contract - Priority jurisdiction - M.R.C.P. 4(h) - M.R.C.P. 15(c) |
| Summary of the Facts: | RAS Family Partners, LP, agreed to lease ten acres of land on the Biloxi Bay to Onnam Biloxi, LLC, for casino development. Ray Sims is the managing partner of RAS, and he also contracted with Onnam to sell his shares of stock in another corporation that owns land adjacent to the proposed casino development. Both the lease and stock sale agreements were subject to certain contingencies, which included approval of the site by the Mississippi Gaming Commission; obtaining a gaming license and other necessary permits; approval of the building plan by the City of Biloxi; a hazardous substances inspection; and the negotiation of a tidelands lease. The closing of the lease and stock sale was to take place on September 30, 2005. On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast region. In a letter dated November 1, 2005, RAS and Sims notified Onnam that “[a]ll agreements between RAS Family Partners and Onnnam Biloxi [had] expired by their own terms.” Onnam filed suit in federal court against RAS and Sims. RAS then filed a separate suit against Onnam in the Circuit Court of Harrison County, seeking a declaratory judgment that the contracts were no longer binding as well as damages for breach of contract and malicious filing of a lis pendens notice. RAS amended its circuit court complaint to include Sims as a plaintiff. Onnam’s federal suit was dismissed pursuant to a provision in the lease agreement, which designated state court as the chosen forum. Onnam then filed suit that same day against RAS and Sims in the Chancery Court of Harrison County. Onnam filed a motion in the circuit court action to transfer to chancery court, while RAS and Sims filed a motion in the chancery court action to transfer to circuit court. Both motions were denied. The Supreme Court granted an interlocutory appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | RAS and Sims argue that the circuit court has priority jurisdiction because they were the first to file suit. The principle of priority jurisdiction presupposes that the first court in which suit is filed is a court of competent jurisdiction. RAS’s and Sims’s complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that the contracts are no longer binding as well as damages for breach of contract and malicious filing of a lis pendens notice. Declaratory judgments are jurisdictionally neutral. Breach of contract actions, on the other hand, are better suited for circuit court. The complaint also requests damages for the alleged breach of contract and malicious filing. While chancery courts may certainly award legal and punitive damages as long as chancery jurisdiction has attached, damages are traditionally considered a legal remedy. Because the complaint seeks legal remedies, the circuit court is a court of competent jurisdiction. Additionally, Onnam stipulated to the circuit court’s jurisdiction in its answer and cross-complaint. Finally, Onnam’s cross-complaint, which is nearly identical to its complaint filed with the chancery court, seeks a legal remedy in the form of damages for breach of contract. To determine which court first acquired jurisdiction, the court looks at the date the initial pleading is filed, provided process issues in due course. The circuit court complaint was filed on December 27, 2005, and the chancery court complaint was filed on January 24, 2006. Because the chancery complaint was filed nearly a month after the first pleading in circuit court, the circuit court has priority jurisdiction. Service of process was accomplished within the 120-day time frame required under M.R.C.P. 4(h). Sims was added as a party through an amended complaint which was filed before a responsive pleading was served. Under M.R.C.P. 15© this amendment relates back to the date of the original complaint. The chancery court’s order denying the motion to transfer is reversed, and Case Number 2006-IA-00976-SCT is remanded to the chancery court with directions to transfer that case to the Harrison County Circuit Court, Second Judicial District. The circuit court’s order denying the motion to transfer is affirmed, and Case Number 2006-IA-01414-SCT is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
