Crawford v. Morris Transp., Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 September 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 2007-CA-00322-SCT.,No. 2006-CA-00185-SCT.,2006-CA-00185-SCT.,2007-CA-00322-SCT. |
| Citation | 990 So.2d 162 |
| Parties | Michael CRAWFORD v. MORRIS TRANSPORTATION, INC., Alex Jordan, individually and as Agent Driver of Morris Transportation, Inc., and Custom Sign Company a/k/a Custom Sign Company of Batesville, Inc. f/k/a Custom Sign Company of Grenada, Inc. Michael Crawford v. Morris Transportation, Inc. and Custom Sign Company a/k/a Custom Sign Company of Batesville, Inc. f/k/a Custom Sign Company of Grenada, Inc. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Derek D. Hopson, Sr., Clarksdale, attorney for appellant.
Charles S. Hewins, R. Brittain Virden, Greenville, Gerald H. Jacks, Kathy R. Clark, attorneys for appellees.
Before WALLER, P.J., DICKINSON and RANDOLPH, JJ.
¶ 1. Michael Crawford filed a petition to perpetuate testimony in the Circuit Court of Coahoma County, Mississippi. The matter was removed to federal court, and Crawford sought dismissal, alternatively remand, on the basis that removal was premature because no complaint had been filed. Before the federal court dismissed the matter, Crawford filed a complaint in the circuit court. Following dismissal, and after the statute of limitations had expired, Crawford attempted further prosecution of his pre-dismissal complaint. Additionally, Crawford filed a separate complaint post-dismissal, raising the same claims against the same parties. The circuit court eventually dismissed both complaints.
¶ 2. The question before this Court is whether the circuit court erred in dismissing both complaints. Applying the one-year savings provision of Mississippi Code Annotated Section 15-1-69 (Rev.2003), we find that the circuit court erred in dismissing Crawford's post-dismissal complaint, which was timely filed within one year of the federal court's dismissal.
¶ 3. This case arises out of an automobile accident which occurred in Clarksdale, Mississippi, on July 14, 2001. Michael Crawford, a Mississippi resident, drove into the back of an eighteen-wheeler tractor-trailer driven by Alex Jordan, an Arkansas resident. Jordan had stopped his semi truck on South State Street because he was unsure whether his vehicle would clear the underpass. At the time of the accident, Jordan was employed by Morris Transportation, Inc., a corporation existing under the laws of Arkansas, with its principal place of business in Arkansas.
¶ 4. In anticipation of a suit against Morris Transportation and Jordan, Crawford filed a petition to perpetuate testimony1 in the Circuit Court of Coahoma County, Mississippi. Crawford sought to depose both Jordan and a designee of Morris Transportation in order to obtain the identity, address, and other information regarding a potential, unknown, local defendant.2 The circuit court entered an order authorizing Crawford to take the depositions.
¶ 5. On August 12, 2003, following their depositions, Morris Transportation and Jordan filed a notice of removal to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. Morris Transportation and Jordan asserted that their depositions had precluded any potential cause of action against any unknown, local defendant(s); and therefore, removal was proper pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code, Sections 1332 and 1441.3
¶ 6. On September 5, 2003, Crawford filed in federal district court a motion to dismiss without prejudice, alternatively to remand. Crawford moved for dismissal on the basis that Morris Transportation and Jordan had "prematurely and improperly" removed the action amidst ongoing, pre-suit discovery, and before an actual complaint had been filed. Alternatively, Crawford petitioned for remand, arguing a civil action had not yet "commenced" due to the absence of a complaint.4 On September 18, 2003, the federal court entered a stay of the proceedings, pending a ruling on Crawford's motion to dismiss.
¶ 7. On October 22, 2003, Crawford filed in federal district court a motion for leave to file a complaint, alternatively to add additional defendants. Crawford asserted that he was prepared to file a complaint against Morris Transportation, Jordan, and Custom Sign Co.5 (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Defendants"). Crawford requested leave to file a complaint in the Circuit Court of Coahoma County, and to have the circuit court clerk forward a copy of his complaint, stamped "filed," to the federal court for inclusion in the removed action. Alternatively, Crawford requested that he be allowed to file his complaint in federal court.
¶ 8. On November 13, 2003, federal Magistrate Judge S. Allan Alexander granted Crawford's Motion for Leave to File Complaint, Alternatively to Add Additional Defendants. Judge Alexander deemed the complaint "hereby filed," in the form as attached to the motion,6 and ordered Crawford to file a signed, original complaint in the "clerk's office" within five days as a substitute for the unsigned copy. A signed copy of Crawford's complaint7 was stamped "received" in the federal court on November 24, 2003. Custom Sign was served process, while Morris Transportation and Jordan waived service of process. Custom Sign responded with a separate answer from Morris Transportation and Jordan.
¶ 9. On December 10, 2003, approximately one month after being granted leave to file his complaint, Crawford filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Coahoma County (hereinafter the "2003 complaint").8 Crawford filed the 2003 complaint under the same cause number originally assigned to his petition to perpetuate testimony. This complaint was an exact copy of the complaint he had filed earlier in federal court.9 Service of process was not issued for the 2003 complaint.10
¶ 10. On August 27, 2004, federal district court Judge W. Allen Pepper, Jr., granted Crawford's Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice, Alternatively, to Remand. The order granting dismissal stated, in pertinent part, that:
[W]hen [Crawford] filed his Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 27 Petition to Perpetuate Testimony in the Circuit Court of Coahoma County, Mississippi, there was as yet no `civil action' to be removed to federal court.... Rule 27 petitions are not currently `actions' as in `civil actions.' Only when [Crawford] actually files a civil action (i.e., files a complaint, not a petition to perpetuate testimony) will the `action' become removable to a federal court. The defendants prematurely removed this action; thus, all events occurring on this case's docket are moot. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: (1) [Crawford's] Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice [4-1] is hereby GRANTED; accordingly, (2) The current action is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and (3) This case is CLOSED.
¶ 11. The post-dismissal actions are discussed separately below.
¶ 12. As previously noted, Crawford's 2003 complaint was filed after removal and while federal court proceedings were pending. On July 14, 2005, nearly eleven months after the federal court's dismissal, Crawford filed a first amended complaint in the circuit court, which related back to his 2003 complaint. Crawford filed the amended complaint pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated Section 15-1-69 (Rev. 2003), which, if applicable, allowed him to re-file suit before August 27, 2005.11
¶ 13. The Defendants sought dismissal of both the 2003 complaint and the amended complaint.12 The Defendants argued that the federal court dismissed—not remanded —Crawford's case, and therefore, the circuit court could not proceed any further on the suit.13 Thus, Crawford's 2003 complaint, the amended complaint, and his efforts to now effect service were moot.14 Alternatively, the Defendants submitted that dismissal was appropriate because Crawford failed to issue timely service on the 2003 complaint.15 Finally, the Defendants contended that the amended complaint was filed outside the three-year statute of limitations, which had expired on July 14, 2004.
¶ 14. Following a hearing on November 14, 2005, the circuit court entered an order of dismissal and final judgment dismissing Crawford's 2003 complaint and amended complaint with prejudice. In a separate order, the circuit court also struck Crawford's Motion to Consolidate16 and Motion for Enlargement of Time to Serve Complaint.
¶ 15. On July 14, 2005, Crawford filed an additional complaint in the circuit court which was styled and numbered as a separate cause of action (hereinafter the "2005 complaint"). Crawford filed this separate complaint "out of an abundance of caution" in case a new complaint became necessary to invoke the protections of the one-year savings statute of Mississippi Code Annotated Section 15-1-69 (Rev.2003).
¶ 16. The Defendants sought dismissal or, alternatively, summary judgment on grounds that the three-year statute of limitations had expired.17 More specifically, Morris Transportation and Jordan argued that Section 15-1-69 applies only to an "action" which is avoided or defeated for "any matter of form." Miss.Code Ann. § 15-1-69 (Rev.2003). Because the federal court had dismissed only a discovery device and not an "action," the provisions of Section 15-1-69 should not apply.
¶ 17. Following a hearing on November 14, 2005, the circuit court entered an order of dismissal and final judgment dismissing Crawford's 2005 complaint with prejudice.
¶ 18. Crawford now appeals the circuit court's dismissals of the 2003 and 2005 complaints, as well as all orders in favor of the Defendants.18
¶ 19. Jurisdictional and statute-of-limitation issues are subject to a de novo review. Rayner v. Raytheon Co., 858 So.2d 132, 133 (Miss.2003) (citing Sorrells v. R & R Custom Coach Works, Inc., 636 So.2d 668, 670 (Miss.1994)); Stephens v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of the United States, 850 So.2d 78, 82 (Miss.2003) (quoting ABC Mfg. Corp. v. Doyle, 749 So.2d 43, 45 (Miss.1999)).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jontra Holdings Pty Ltd. v. Gas Sensing Tech. Corp.
...state courts have given effect to pleadings filed in federal court prior to remand to state court.'"); Crawford v. Morris Transp., Inc., 990 So.2d 162, 173n.27 (Miss. 2008) ("The modern trend is to give effect to pleadings filed in federal court upon remand."); State ex rel. Village of Los ......
-
Worley Brown, LLC v. Mississippi Dep't of Archives & History
...as a matter of form. Marshall v. Kansas City Southern Railways Co., 7 So. 3d 210, 215 (Miss 2009) (citing Crawford v. Morris Transp., Inc., 990 So. 2d 162, 174 (Miss. 2008)). In Marshall, the court stated: "the order of dismissal and entry of final judgment was a matter of form under Sectio......
-
Arceo v. Tolliver
... ... Quoting Pitalo v. GPCH-GP, Inc., 933 So.2d 927 (Miss.2006), we stated that the Mississippi Legislature ... See, e.g., Crawford v. Morris Transp., Inc., 990 So.2d 162, 170 (Miss.2008); Ryan v ... ...
-
Willis v. Shelby County, No. W2008-01487-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App. 6/8/2009)
...action taken in state court after a written notice of removal and before remand is of no force or effect. See Crawford v. Morris Trans., Inc., 990 So. 2d 162, 169 (Miss. 2008). Various plaintiffs have attempted to argue that dismissal of their claims in federal court somehow automatically r......