Todd v. Clayton
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-01308-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-01-2011 Opinion Author: Judge Irving Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Motion for sanctions - M.R.C.P. 11 - M.R.C.P. 59(e) - M.R.C.P. 54(a) & (b) - Motion for discovery Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Griffis, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Barnes, J. Dissenting Author : Carlton, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-31-2009 Appealed from: TISHOMINGO COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: THOMAS J. GARDNER Disposition: DENIED MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND EXPENSES Case Number: CV02-0233GT |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Michael A. Todd, M.D., Pathology Lab, Inc. and Michael Todd, M.D., P.A. |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | Claude Clayton | JACK F. DUNBAR, JONATHAN S. MASTERS | ||
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: | Medical malpractice - Motion for sanctions - M.R.C.P. 11 - M.R.C.P. 59(e) - M.R.C.P. 54(a) & (b) - Motion for discovery |
| Summary of the Facts: | Judith Clark’s estate filed a wrongful-death action against Dr. Michael Todd alleging medical malpractice. The deposition of Dr. Todd’s co-defendant, Dr. Patrick Hsu, ultimately absolved Dr. Todd of liability, and the circuit court dismissed Dr. Todd from the case. Years later, Dr. Todd filed a motion for sanctions against Claude Clayton, the attorney for the estate. The court denied the motion, and Dr. Todd appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Dr. Todd argues that the circuit court erred in dismissing his motion for sanctions under M.R.C.P. 11 as time-barred. A motion for Rule 11 sanctions is, in effect, a motion to amend the judgment in a cause. As such, the time period for filing a Rule 11 motion is subject to the time constraints set forth in M.R.C.P. 59(e), i.e., a motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be filed not later than ten days after entry of the judgment. “Judgment” is defined under M.R.C.P. 54(a) as a final decree and any order from which an appeal lies. Rule 54(b) addresses cases, like the malpractice case against Dr. Todd, that involve claims against multiple parties. The circuit court dismissed Dr. Todd from the case via summary judgment on January 27, 2005. Dr. Hsu was dismissed by final judgment on June 16, 2008. The circuit court’s order granting summary judgment for Dr. Todd was not properly certified as a final judgment under Rule 54(b) and was not appealable. Instead, the final judgment dismissing Dr. Hsu on June 16, 2008, ended all claims against all parties and constituted an appealable order or “judgment,” which began the running of the ten-day limitation period set forth in Rule 59(e). As Dr. Todd filed his motion for sanctions under Rule 11 on August 2, 2007, the circuit court erred in finding that the motion was time-barred. However, Dr. Todd is not entitled to sanctions under the rule. Rule 11 permits a court to impose sanctions against a party or his attorney if any party files a motion or pleading which, in the opinion of the court, is frivolous or is filed for the purpose of harassment or delay. A motion or pleading is frivolous only when, objectively speaking, the pleader or movant has no hope of success. Clayton’s client had a reasonable hope of success on its malpractice claim against Dr. Todd. Furthermore, when Dr. Hsu’s deposition absolved Dr. Todd of liability, Clayton acted in good faith in abandoning the claim against Dr. Todd. In conjunction with his motion for sanctions, Dr. Todd filed a motion for additional discovery and a motion to compel discovery. The circuit court did not address Dr. Todd’s discovery motions, and Dr. Todd argues this was error. However, in December 2008, Dr. Todd and Clayton agreed to have the sanctions dispute decided “on the record.” By signing the agreement, Dr. Todd abandoned further discovery efforts related to his motion for sanctions in favor of expediting the circuit court’s decision on the matter. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
