Georgia-Pacific Corp., Inc., et al. v. Mooney, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2002-IA-01990-SCT Linked Case(s): 2002-M-01990-SCT ; 2002-M-01990-SCT ; 2002-M-01990 ; 2002-M-01990 ; 2002-M-01990 |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-03-2005 Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Negligence - Jurisdiction - Exhaustion of administrative remedies Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Graves, JJ. Procedural History: Interlocutory Appeal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS - OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-21-2002 Appealed from: Smith County Circuit Court Judge: Robert G. Evans Disposition: The circuit court transferred the matter to chancery court. |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Inc.; Herbert Jones; and C. Gary Crumpton, Administrator of the Estate of Thomas A. Jones, Deceased |
W. WAYNE DRINKWATER, JR.
MARGARET OERTLING CUPPLES
JAMES H. HEIDELBERG
R. K. HOUSTON |
||
| Appellee: | Dolly Dimple Jones Mooney; Wiley Dorman Jones; and Diane Jones Moore | GERALD MARION MARTIN E. HOWARD EATON WILLIAM H. JONES JOLLY W. MATTHEWS |
|
|
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: | Negligence - Jurisdiction - Exhaustion of administrative remedies |
| Summary of the Facts: | The plaintiffs alleged multiple causes of action against Georgia-Pacific Corporation and Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc. known as the Georgia-Pacific Actions and the Resin Actions, including negligence, gross negligence, strict liability, continuing toxic trespass, private nuisance, public nuisance, fraud and waste. The plaintiffs all own land in Smith County on which is waste material allegedly deposited by Georgia-Pacific. Georgia-Pacific filed a motion for summary judgment based upon the statutes of limitation and prior trespass doctrine. The court denied the motion. The plaintiffs filed a motion to transfer the Georgia-Pacific Actions to the chancery court. Georgia-Pacific filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The circuit court transferred the Georgia-Pacific Actions to chancery court, refrained from ruling on Georgia-Pacific’s motion to dismiss to allow the parties to argue the motion in the chancery court and denied certification for interlocutory appeal. Georgia-Pacific sought permission to bring an interlocutory appeal challenging the circuit court’s transfer of the Georgia-Pacific Actions and the chancery court’s jurisdiction. The Supreme Court consolidated all six cases, the three Georgia-Pacific Actions and the three Resin Actions for the interlocutory appeal as there was no practical way to sever the cases because of the consolidation in the trial court. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Jurisdiction Georgia-Pacific argues that the chancery court does not have jurisdiction to hear the cases, because this case has been based on monetary damages and injunctive relief was requested only after the circuit court transferred the Georgia-Pacific Actions to chancery court. If some doubt exists as to whether a complaint is legal or equitable in nature, that case is better tried in circuit court. Courts are to look to the substance of the claim rather than the form of the case. The substance of the claims in the complaint in this case was legal, not equitable. Only after the circuit court transferred the Georgia-Pacific Actions to chancery court did the plaintiffs add an equitable claim for abatement. Because the Georgia-Pacific Actions were in the circuit court for about five years before the transfer to chancery court, the circuit court is quite familiar with all the issues of the case. The three Georgia-Pacific Actions were originally filed in circuit court, and the three Resin Actions were originally filed in chancery court. Therefore, the three Georgia-Pacific Actions are remanded to chancery court and shall be promptly retransferred to circuit court, and the three Resin Actions shall remain in the chancery court. Issue 2: Administrative remedies Georgia-Pacific argues that both the Georgia-Pacific Actions and the Resins Actions must be dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies with the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality. The company cites to correspondence from MDEQ in 1997 and 2002 that allegedly indicates that MDEQ will seek administrative remedies relating to closure and/or remediation of the property. Where an administrative agency regulates certain activity, an aggrieved party must first seek relief from the administrative agency before seeking relief from the trial courts. The Mississippi Legislature has delegated authority to MDEQ in regard to solid waste management. MDEQ also has the authority to enforce compliance with the environmental laws and regulations of the State of Mississippi and may impose civil penalties, injunctive relief, remediation or clean-up. Here, the plaintiffs’ claims were for multiple claims such as negligence, gross negligence, strict liability, continuing toxic trespass, private nuisance, public nuisance and waste, claims which are not solely based upon the clean-up of any contamination. To the extent that the causes of action do not specifically relate to an administrative remedy provided by the statutes and regulations of MDEQ, the remaining causes of action should not be dismissed without prejudice as Georgia-Pacific requests. The trial court is in the best position to determine what causes of action relate to potential clean-up, remediation or closure activities pursuant to the laws and regulations of MDEQ and on remand, the circuit court should make a determination as to these causes of action. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
