City of Jackson v. United Water Servs., Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2009-SA-01105-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-18-2010 Opinion Author: Randolph, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wastewater contract - Section 11-51-75 - Motion to intervene in appeal - M.R.C.P. 24 - M.R.A.P. 1 - M.R.A.P. 29 Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson, P.J., Dickinson, Chandler and Pierce, JJ. Dissenting Author : Graves, P.J., Dissents With Separate Written Opinion Dissent Joined By : Kitchens, J. Concurs in Result Only: Lamar, J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-09-2009 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: The Jackson City Council awarded a contract to Jackson Water Partnership (JWP). United Water Services of Mississippi (UWS) appealed the City Council's decision. JWP filed a motion to intervene, which the circuit court denied. Case Number: 251-08-917 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI AND JACKSON
WATER PARTNERSHIP |
PIETER JOHN TEEUWISSEN, JAMES A. PEDEN, JR., LARA E. GILL, DALE DANKS, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | UNITED WATER SERVICES, INC. AND UNITED WATER SERVICES OF MISSISSIPPI, LLC | ROBERT L. GIBBS, KATIE LOFTON WALLACE |
|
|
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: | Wastewater contract - Section 11-51-75 - Motion to intervene in appeal - M.R.C.P. 24 - M.R.A.P. 1 - M.R.A.P. 29 |
| Summary of the Facts: | In March 2008, the City of Jackson issued a Request for Proposals for the Operation, Maintenance and Management of the Wastewater Facilities. Various vendors, including United Water Services and Jackson Water Partnership, submitted proposals on or about May 20, 2008. An “Evaluation of Proposals for the Operation, Maintenance and Management of Wastewater Facilities” prepared by the City’s Department of Public Works revealed a “pricing comparison” of the three submitted bids, as follows: Southwest Water Company – $3,019,170.31; UWS – $2,615,996.05; JWP – $4,689,018.13. Following multiple special meetings reflected in the bill of exceptions, the Jackson City Council, by a four-to-one vote, awarded the contract to JWP on November 10, 2008. UWS filed a notice of appeal with the circuit court pursuant to section 11-51-75. UWS claimed that the City, in awarding the wastewater contract, had engaged in an unlawfully executed RFP process. JWP moved to intervene in the action, to which the City filed a joinder. Thereafter, the circuit court denied JWP’s motion to intervene. JWP and the City now appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | UWS filed the appeal pursuant to section 11-51-75, which provides that “[a]ny person aggrieved by a judgment or decision of the board of supervisors, or municipal authorities of a city, town, or village, may appeal . . . .” JWP clearly was not “aggrieved,” because it was awarded a contract paying it $2 million more than what UWS had bid to perform the same services. The rationale behind permitting only the “aggrieved” to appeal is logical. It is not the act or conduct of a prevailing bidder which is subject to examination at the appellate level. Rather, the circuit court sitting as an appellate court was charged with determining whether the decision of the board of supervisors, or municipal authorities was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to applicable law. Although the prevailing bidder may be interested, it is not a necessary or indispensable party, nor a proper party under the statute granting the right of appeal solely to the “aggrieved.” JWP claims its right to intervene arises from M.R.C.P. 24. But, the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure apply to trial proceedings only, except where therein expressly provided to the contrary. The Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure clearly and unequivocally do not provide for intervention at the appellate level. The Rules as enumerated in the Comment to M.R.A.P. 1 can be applicable in an appealed case. But common sense dictates that the applicability of certain Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, Mississippi Rules of Evidence, uniform rules, and local rules adopted pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 83, will depend upon the nature of the appeal. In a trial de novo (for example, a direct appeal from justice court or municipal court), the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure (including Rule 24 on intervention) and the Mississippi Rules of Evidence would apply. While intervention was not an option available to JWP under the Rules, this is not to say that the participation of additional parties should be barred. M.R.A.P. 29 provides an avenue for persons other than the parties to participate in the appellate process via the filing of an amicus curiae brief. JWP certainly had the right to seek participation at the appellate level by seeking leave to file an amicus curiae brief, however, intervention was not an available option. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
