Delta and Pine Land Co. v. Boyd


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2004-IA-02562-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 04-20-2006
Opinion Author: Dickinson, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Failure to file administrative complaint - Section 69-3-19(3)(e)(i) - Section 69-3-19(3)(e)(ii)
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson and Graves, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Randolph, JJ.
Procedural History: Dismissal
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 12-14-2004
Appealed from: Holmes County Circuit Court
Judge: Jannie M. Lewis
Disposition: Court severed Plaintiff's claims however denied Appellant's Motions to Dismiss
Case Number: 2004-470

Note: Consolidated with 2004-IA-02561-SCT Delta and Pine Land Company v. Vernon Smith; Holmes Circuit Court; LC Case #: 2004-477; Ruling Date: 12/14/2004; Ruling Judge: Jannie Lewis; Consolidated with 2004-IA-02560-SCT Delta and Pine Land Company v. Carlos Harris; Holmes Circuit Court; LC Case #: 2004-479; Ruling Date: 12/14/2004; Ruling Judge: Jannie Lewis; Consolidated with 2004-IA-02558-SCT Delta and Pine Land Company v. Reginald Burns; Holmes Circuit Court; LC Case #: 2004-473; Ruling Date: 12/14/2004; Ruling Judge: Jannie Lewis; Consolidated with 2004-IA-02563-SCT Delta and Pine Land Company v. Tommie Gray; Holmes Circuit Court; LC Case #: 2004-480; Ruling Date: 12/14/2004; Ruling Judge: Jannie Lewis; Consolidated with 2004-IA-02564-SCT Delta and Pine Land Company v. Rodney Burns; Holmes Circuit Court; LC Case #: 2004-481; Ruling Date: 12/14/2004; Ruling Judge: Jannie Lewis; Consolidated with 2004-IA-02565-SCT Delta and Pine Land Company v. Horace Anderson; Holmes Circuit Court; LC Case #: 2004-469; Ruling Date: 12/14/2004; Ruling Judge: Jannie Lewis

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: DELTA AND PINE LAND COMPANY




STEPHEN L. THOMAS, MARGARET OERTLING CUPPLES, DANIELLE DAIGLE IRELAND, EDWARD BLACKMON, JOHN D. BRADY



 

Appellee: MILTON BOYD MARK THOMAS McLEOD, MITCHELL HARRY TYNER, SR.  

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: Failure to file administrative complaint - Section 69-3-19(3)(e)(i) - Section 69-3-19(3)(e)(ii)

Summary of the Facts: Fifty-six farmers who purchased and planted the “NuCotn 33B” cotton seed variety produced by Delta and Pine Land Company during the 1999 crop season filed suit against the company. The company filed a number of motions in the trial court, including a Motion to Sever Plaintiffs’ Claims and to Transfer Venue, a Motion to Dismiss, a Motion to Enforce Forum Selection Clause, a Motion to Enforce Limitation of Remedies Clauses, and a Motion to Dismiss Warranty Claims. The circuit court entered an order severing the plaintiffs’ claims and transferring the claims of certain plaintiffs to other venues. Additionally, in each of the severed cases in which Holmes County was a proper venue, the trial court denied the company’s remaining motions but certified its denials of the motions to dismiss for interlocutory review. The company filed its petitions for permission to bring interlocutory appeals which the Supreme Court granted.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Section 69-3-19(3)(e)(i) of Mississippi’s Seed Act provides that, before a consumer can sue a distributor of agricultural seed for alleged failure of the seed to perform as represented by the label or labeling, the consumer must first file an administrative complaint with the Mississippi Department of Agriculture within such time as to permit inspection of the crops. In order to enforce its provisions, section 69-3-19(3)(e)(ii) requires a seedsman to notify consumers of the mandatory arbitration requirement. This appeal turns on the question of whether the plaintiffs were required by to file an administrative complaint and submit their claims against the company to non-binding arbitration before the Commission of Agriculture and Commerce as a prerequisite to filing suit in circuit court. Section 69-3-19(3)(e)(ii) requiring the manufacturer to attach a specific notice informing consumers of the administrative complaint requirement states that complaints must be filed with the MDA only if the claims are based upon the failure of seed to which this label is attached to produce as represented. In fact, the company’s “NOTICE TO BUYER” placed on each bag of NuCotn 33B sold in 1999 only informed consumers that claims “based upon alleged failure of the seed to properly produce or preform as represented by the label or labeling” must first be filed with the MDA. The plaintiffs argue that their suit is unrelated to representations of the labeling and that therefore, they were not required to first file an administrative complaint prior to commencing suit against the company. The plaintiffs in this case do not allege label violations but rather claims of negligence, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, breach of express warranties, gross negligence, fraud, intentional interference with prospective economic opportunities, and tortious interference with a business relationship. Therefore, the circuit court properly denied the company’s motion to dismiss such claims based on the plaintiffs’ failure to file administrative complaints.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court