Delta Mk v. Miss. Transp. Comm'n.

• Citation: 57 So.3d 1284
• Decision Date: 07 April 2011
• Docket Number: No. 2009–CA–02021–SCT.,2009–CA–02021–SCT.
• Parties: DELTA MK, LLCv.MISSISSIPPI TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

57 So.3d 1284

DELTA MK, LLC
v.
MISSISSIPPI TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION.

No. 2009–CA–02021–SCT.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 7, 2011.

[57 So.3d 1285]

Laura Henderson–Courtney, Florence, David Ringer, attorneys for appellant.Christopher H. Coleman, Jackson, Jim Warren, attorneys for appellee.Before CARLSON, P.J., LAMAR and CHANDLER, JJ.LAMAR, Justice, for the Court:

¶ 1. Delta MK, the owner of a service station along Highway 49, brought suit against the Mississippi Transportation Commission (MTC), claiming that the Commission's decision to close two medians across Highway 49 had greatly diminished its business. MTC filed a motion to dismiss, and the trial judge considered matters outside the pleadings when he ruled in its favor. Finding that the trial judge erred when he converted MTC's motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment without giving Delta notice, we reverse and remand.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2. On June 14, 2005, Delta MK, LLC—owner of a service station along Highway 49 South in Richland—filed suit in the Rankin County Chancery Court against the Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) and the Mississippi Transportation Commission. Delta alleged that construction along Highway 49 had “prevent[ed] the free ingress and egress to and from [its] premises and otherwise interfer[ed] with [its] property rights ... thereby prohibiting the reasonable and necessary use of the property....” Specifically, Delta alleged that the closure of two medians ¹ across Highway 49 had greatly reduced

[57 So.3d 1286]

access to its property, forcing potential customers to drive past the store on Highway 49, and then to drive in the opposite direction on the frontage road to access it.

¶ 3. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and, after several other motions were filed, the parties agreed to transfer the case to the Rankin County Circuit Court. The parties also agreed that Delta would be allowed to file an amended complaint that officially stated “inverse condemnation” ² as a cause of action. Delta filed its amended complaint, naming the Mississippi Transportation Commission as the only defendant. Delta's amended complaint requested an order from the trial court “requiring [MTC] to condemn the property rights and access rights being destroyed by the [construction] project, pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 11–27–1, et seq. ,” or alternatively, an assessment of actual and nominal damages for a taking without just compensation.

¶ 4. MTC answered the amended complaint, arguing that Delta had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. After the parties had engaged in discovery for several months, MTC filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial judge entered an agreed scheduling order mandating that all fact discovery, including depositions of all fact witnesses, be completed by December 28, 2007. Delta subsequently filed a motion to hold MTC's motion for summary judgment in abeyance, stating that “[w]ithout completion of discovery, [it was] in no position to respond” to MTC's motion for summary judgment. Although we found no order in the record granting Delta's request, the trial court apparently did hold MTC's motion in abeyance, as several subsequent scheduling orders stated that “Summary Judgment Motions, including the currently pending Motion, are to be heard no later than 60 days prior to trial.”

¶ 5. Delta filed a second amended complaint on October 8, 2008, adding claims that MTC had violated its due process and its civil rights. In response, MTC filed a motion to dismiss, which is the subject of this appeal. MTC argued that no compensable taking had occurred, because the closure of the medians was a proper exercise of its police power, and that the affected section of Highway 49 was a “controlled access facility,” with no right of ingress or egress. MTC attached to its motion four exhibits: Delta's second amended complaint, a 1964 order from the State Highway Commission,³ an MDOT maintenance rule, and the deposition of an MTC employee.

¶ 6. The parties filed a joint motion to stay all expert discovery pending a ruling on MTC's motion to dismiss, which the trial judge granted. Delta subsequently filed its response to MTC's motion to dismiss,

[57 So.3d 1287]

⁴ arguing that the sole issue before the court was whether it had stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, and that it clearly had done so. Delta also attached to its response several exhibits, including deposition excerpts, maps/charts, and newspaper clippings. Delta concluded its response by stating:

For the above reasons, [Delta] respectfully submits that [MTC] is not entitled to a dismissal in this case pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Alternatively, if this Court regards [MTC's] Motion to Dismiss as one which should have been filed under Rule 56, as a Motion for Summary Judgment, [Delta] would respectfully request an opportunity to supplement its response to provide additional affidavits and deposition excerpts to the Court. Additionally, if this Court regards [MTC's] motion as one for summary judgment, instead of a motion for dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), [Delta] would respectfully request leave to complete expert discovery and depositions in this case, prior to the court ruling on [MTC's] motion.(Emphasis added.)

¶ 7. The parties appeared before the circuit judge for a hearing on MTC's motion to dismiss. At the hearing, the circuit judge expressed concern that the case was not in the proper court and sua sponte transferred the case to the Rankin County Special Court of Eminent Domain. On September 21, 2009, the parties appeared before the special court judge for a hearing on MTC's motion to dismiss. Although both parties referred to matters outside the second amended complaint, counsel for Delta requested on several occasions that the trial judge restrict his deliberations to the allegations in the second amended complaint.

¶ 8. The special court judge issued a memorandum opinion granting MTC's motion to dismiss as to the inverse-condemnation claim and dismissing Delta's due-process and civil-rights claims without prejudice (citing lack of jurisdiction). In his opinion, the judge noted that he had considered matters outside the pleadings, stating: “Following arguments of counsel, the Court took the matter under advisement in order to review the voluminous pleadings, discovery documents, documents used by counsel at the hearing, and the competing pleadings on the Motion to Dismiss.” ⁵

¶ 9. The judge found particularly persuasive the 1964 Order from the State Highway Commission which designated the relevant portion of Highway 49 a “controlled access facility” and mandated that no right of ingress or egress existed, unless specifically permitted by the Commission. Specifically, the judge found that:

[T]his is not an eminent domain case nor a cause of inverse condemnation, traditional or otherwise. Whether there may remain some compensable wrong done to [Delta] after the eminent domain portions of this case are dismissed is a matter perhaps available to [Delta] in another court on another day. Based upon the Conclusions of Law which this Court believes it is bound to follow ... this case may proceed no further under eminent domain law.

Finally, the judge noted:

In the event a reviewing court should determine that the Court's consideration

[57 So.3d 1288]

of items other than [Delta's] pleadings, e.g. the May, 1964 Order supplied in [MTC's] pleadings, has somehow transformed this into a Summary Judgment, the Court has provided that case law and more detailed factual findings above to make clear that it finds Summary Judgment is also proper in this case.

The trial judge subsequently...