Knight v. Knight
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-01084-SCT | |
| Oral Argument: | 10-05-2011 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-19-2012 Opinion Author: Carlson, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Local court order - M.R.C.P. 83(b) - Separate complaints - Statute of limitations - Dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute - M.R.C.P. 41(d)(1) Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler, Pierce and King, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Dickinson, P.J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-16-2010 Appealed from: Jackson County Circuit Court Judge: Dale Harkey Disposition: Dismissed these refiled actions based upon a running of the statute of limitations. Case Number: 2010-00062 |
|
| Consolidated: 2010-CA-01086-SCT Brian K. Knight v. Benny R. Knight; Jackson Circuit Court; LC Case #: 2010-00063; Ruling Date: 06/15/2010; Ruling Judge: Robert P. Krebs | ||
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | David Earl Knight |
MARCIE FYKE BARIA
DAVID WAYNE BARIA |
||
| Appellee: | Benny R. Knight | H. WESLEY WILLIAMS, III JAMES HENDERSON HALL JAMES H. COLMER, JR. |
|
|
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: | Personal injury - Local court order - M.R.C.P. 83(b) - Separate complaints - Statute of limitations - Dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute - M.R.C.P. 41(d)(1) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Brian Knight and David Knight each filed separate complaints against Benny Knight, their uncle, alleging assault and battery occurring on August 31, 1999. The trial court dismissed these consolidated cases without prejudice for want of prosecution nearly ten years later. Neither plaintiff appealed this order of dismissal. On March 19, 2010, Brian Knight and David Knight refiled separate actions, but the trial court granted Benny’s motions to dismiss both cases, finding that the one-year statute of limitations had run for both actions. Brian and David appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Local court order Brian and David argue that the trial court erred by relying on a 1993 local court order specifying that separate complaints must be filed for each plaintiff in all civil actions with exception of husband and wife, when dismissing their complaints as time-barred by the statute of limitations. In making this argument, Brian and David also argue that the statute of limitations had been tolled for ten years since the filing of their original complaints for the 1999 litigation, which the trial court dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. M.R.C.P. 83(b) provides that no uniform rules or local rules of any circuit court shall be effective unless approved by the Supreme Court. The trial court erred by dismissing Brian’s and David’s single complaint listing both of them as plaintiffs. It would be unjust to hold that a local order which was never published was binding on the plaintiffs. Issue 2: Statute of limitations Benny argues that filing a complaint should not toll the statute of limitations when a complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Filing a complaint tolls the statute of limitations and permits a plaintiff to refile his or her case if this case is dismissed without prejudice and time remains on the statute of limitations. But, in those cases in which the plaintiff requests a voluntary dismissal resulting in a court-ordered dismissal without prejudice, there is no tolling. M.R.C.P. 41(d)(1) requires dismissal without prejudice after a successful clerk’s motion to dismiss for want of prosecution. Allowing the statute to toll in such a situation presents an opportunity for abuse of process, potentially allowing cases to be dismissed and refiled for a period of years or even decades. This would reward plaintiffs who sleep on their rights and would lead to unjust results. Therefore, when an action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute, the statute of limitations does not toll, and the parties are left in the same position as if they had never filed the action. To the extent the language in the case Jackpot Mississippi Riverboat, Inc. v. Smith, 874 So. 2d 959, 961 (Miss. 2004), implies that the statute does toll in such cases, Jackpot is hereby overruled on this issue. Here, the statute of limitations on the claims of Brian and David is treated as having run one year after their August 31, 1999, altercation. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
