Moore, et al. v. Bell Chevrolet-Pontiac-Buick-GMC, LLC, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2002-M-00531-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-15-2004 Opinion Author: Easley, J. Holding: Reversed and Rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Administrative proceeding - Mootness - Venue - Section 11-45-1 - Miss. Const. art. 4, § 101 - Complaint for discovery in chancery court - Attorney-client privilege Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Smith, P.J., Carlson and Graves, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Waller, P.J., Diaz and Dickinson, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Cobb, J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-22-2002 Appealed from: Rankin County Chancery Court Judge: Thomas L. Zebert Disposition: Ordered that venue was proper in Rankin County and granted the Defendants' request for discovery. Case Number: 51193 |
|
| Consolidated: 2002-CA-00536-SCT Mike Moore; Phillip Martin, The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; Thomas E. Jolly, Jr.; N. L. Carson; Robert Rogers; and H. Eagle Day v. Bell Chevrolet-Pontiac-Buick-GMC, LLC; Bill Ethridge Lincoln Mercury, Inc.; Don Davis Chevrolet, Inc.; Ed Davis Motors, Inc.; Griffis Ford-Mercury, Inc.; Killens Chevrolet-Oldsmobile-Pontiac, Inc.; Marshall Ford Company, Inc.; Starkville Ford-Lincoln-Mercury, Inc.; Tom Brooks Auto Sales Inc.; and Triple M Motors, Inc.; Rankin Chancery Court; LC Case #: 51193; Ruling Date: 03/22/2002; Ruling Judge: Thomas L. Zebert | ||
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Mike Moore; Thomas E. Jolly, Jr.; N. L. Carson; Robert Rogers and H. Eagle Day |
|||
| Appellee: | Bell Chevrolet-Pontiac-Buick-GMC, LLC; Bill Ethridge Lincoln Mercury, Inc.; Don Davis Chevrolet, Inc.; Ed Davis Motors, Inc.; Griffis Ford-Mercury, Inc.; Marshall Ford Company, Inc.; Starkville Ford-Lincoln-Mercury, Inc.; Tom Brooks Auto Sales, Inc. and Triple M Motors, Inc. |
|
||
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: | Administrative proceeding - Mootness - Venue - Section 11-45-1 - Miss. Const. art. 4, § 101 - Complaint for discovery in chancery court - Attorney-client privilege |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians applied to the Mississippi Motor Vehicle Commission for a dealership license to purchase and operate Frontier Ford, an automobile dealership. The Commission voted to grant a dealership license to the M.B.C.I. The Mississippi Automobile Dealers were granted a hearing before the Commission on their objection and verified complaint seeking revocation of the license. In a separate action, the Dealers also sought the equitable relief of discovery in chancery court in conjunction with the administrative proceeding before the Commission by filing a complaint for discovery. The chancellor granted the Dealers' request for discovery. The defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied. The defendants filed a notice of appeal along with a motion seeking an emergency stay of the trial court's discovery order. The Supreme Court issued a temporary stay. The Dealers proceeded with their hearing before the Commission without the benefit of discovery, and the Commission denied the relief requested by the Dealers. The Commission's decision was not appealed. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Mootness The defendants and the Dealers request that the Supreme Court address the issues raised on appeal even though the parties admit that this appeal will have no bearing on the Commission's hearing for which the discovery was sought as the dealership license was granted to the M.B.C.I. An exception to the mootness rule exists where the activity is of short duration, but the length of time required to file an appeal is lengthy and the issue involved in the case is capable of repetition but would otherwise evade judicial review. This case clearly qualifies as an exception to the mootness rule and should be addressed. Issue 2: Venue The Defendants argue that venue should have been in Hinds County where the Attorney General's office is located rather than Rankin County where Mike Moore is a resident. Clearly, the proper county in which to have sued the Attorney General's Office, which is a state agency, is the county in which the seat of government is located. In the Dealers' complaint, the discovery sought from Moore was information regarding a verbal agreement he had with the M.B.C.I. regarding its submission to the jurisdiction of the State of Mississippi. The information sought from Moore was information gathered in his official capacity as Attorney General. Section 11-45-1 provides that any person having a claim against the State of Mississippi may, where it is not otherwise provided, bring suit therefor against the state, in the court having jurisdiction of the subject matter which holds its sessions at the seat of government and if there be no such court at the seat of government, such suit may be instituted in such court in the county in which the seat of government may be. Miss. Const. art. 4, § 101 states that the seat of state government shall be the City of Jackson which is located in Hinds County. Accordingly, venue should have been Hinds County. Issue 3: Validity of administrative proceeding The defendants argue that no statutory authority existed to support the Commission's decision that the Dealers had a right to intervene in the administrative licensing process. Neither party appealed any decision rendered by the Commission. Because the subject of this appeal is strictly limited to the complaint for discovery filed in the Rankin County Chancery Court, this issue is not properly before the Court. Issue 4: Complaint for discovery The defendants argue that the court erred in finding that the Dealers' complaint for discovery was the proper avenue to obtain the requested discovery, because the information sought by the Dealers could have been obtained by less-intrusive means. Diligence is a general condition to any application to a court of equity. It is not allowable to invoke the aid of the court to procure for the plaintiff that which by reasonable efforts he could himself procure without the court's aid. While a complaint for discovery exists as a proper means to seek discovery in conjunction with administrative proceedings, the Dealers in this case did not demonstrate that they were diligent or made reasonable efforts to exhaust other avenues of obtaining the information without proceeding in trial court on a complaint for discovery. Therefore, the court erred in allowing the Dealers' complaint for discovery. Issue 5: Attorney-client privilege One of the objections raised for the first time in the motion for reconsideration filed by the defendants was that the information sought is protected by the attorney-client, work product and deliberative process privileges. Since the complaint for discovery was not proper, this issue is moot. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
