A & F Properties v. Madison Cy. Bd. of Supervisors
| Decision Date | 27 September 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV.A. 3:04-CV-638WS.,CIV.A. 3:04-CV-638WS. |
| Citation | 414 F.Supp.2d 618 |
| Parties | A & F PROPERTIES, LLC Plaintiff v. MADISON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Defendant LAKE CAROLINE, INC. Intervenor |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi |
G. Todd Burwell, Latham & Burwell, PLLC, Ridgeland, MS, James E. Lambert, James E. Lambert, Attorney, Jackson, MS, William L. Latham, Latham & Burwell, PLLC, Ridgeland, MS, for A & F Properties, LLC, Plaintiff.
Edmund L. Brunini, Jr., Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, Jackson, MS, for Madison County Board of Supervisors, Defendant.
Thomas A. Cook, Copeland, Cook, Taylor & Bush, Donald James Blackwood, Jr., Copeland, Cook, Taylor & Bush, L. Michele McCain, Copeland, Cook, Taylor & Bush, Ridgeland, MS, for Lake Caroline, Inc., Intervenor Defendant.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Before the court are the following motions: (1) defendant Madison County Board of Supervisors' motion asking this court to dismiss [docket # 5-1] this lawsuit pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (7), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;1 and (2) defendant Madison County Board of Supervisors' motion, in the alternative, asking this court to abstain pending a certain state court ruling [docket # 5-2]. This case involves a zoning dispute between plaintiff A & F Properties, L.L.C., and defendant Madison County Board of Supervisors. Plaintiff invokes this court's subject matter jurisdiction under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331.2 Plaintiff asserts in its complaint: (1) that this court should issue a declaratory judgment finding that the defendant Madison County Board of Supervisors violated plaintiff's right to due process pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,3 and pursuant to Section 17-1-17, Mississippi Code 4; and (2) that plaintiff is entitled to attorney's fees under Sections 19835 and 1988,6 United States Code.
In its motion to dismiss, defendant contends that the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel apply here because an identical lawsuit between these parties has already been adjudicated in state court adversely to plaintiff. For the reasons that follow, this court grants defendant's motion to dismiss. All other pending motions are, hereby, rendered moot.
On July 14, 1989, Lake Caroline, Inc., ("LCI") filed a petition for rezoning with the Madison County Board of Supervisors. The petition requested rezoning of certain property from classification A-1, or Agricultural, to P-1, or Planned Unit Development, ("PUD"). On August 7, 1989, after notice and public hearing, the Madison County Board of Supervisors rezoned the property from A-1 to P-1. At that time, the Madison County Board of Supervisors approved a Master Development Plan for the PUD called Caroline. The 1989 Master Development Plan ("1989 plan") allegedly showed approximately 3,000 residential lots over a vast majority of the PUD and community amenities such as walking trails, an equestrian center, a community clubhouse, polo, softball fields, soccer fields, and recreational lakes. Supposedly, the 1989 plan did not reflect plans for a golf course; rather, the plan showed residential lots on the property now owned by A & F Properties, L.L.C. ("A & F").
The 1989 plan cannot be found in the Madison County records. A & F submits its copy of the 1989 plan is correct and claims to have used that copy to obtain approval of water supply for the PUD from the Mississippi State Department of Health on March 6, 1990.
On September 27, 1995, LCI entered into a contract with A & F allegedly agreeing to sell approximately 150 acres in the PUD to A & F. The contract required A & F to develop and construct a golf course on the subject property. LCI transferred the subject property to A & F on or about November 3, 1995, by way of warranty deed. The warranty deed contained a restriction requiring that the property be maintained as a golf course for 10 years from December 31, 1996. In 1996, the property was developed by A & F as required in the contract and warranty deed.
On or about February 25, 1998, the Madison County Board of Supervisors, approved another Master Plan for the PUD. The 1998 Master Plan ("1998 plan") showed a golf course on A & F's property where residential lots formerly appeared on the 1989 plan. The Order from the Madison County Board of Supervisors approving the 1998 plan stated that all future actions affecting the development would be taken in keeping with the 1998 plan. Plaintiff alleges that the 1998 plan was approved by the Madison County Board of Supervisors without notice and a hearing as required by law.
In February 2001, the Madison County Board of Supervisors approved an amendment to the 1998 plan. This 2001 Master Plan ("2001 plan"), plaintiff alleges, was not accompanied by notice and a hearing. The 2001 plan adds 217 lots. The 2001 plan shows A & F's property as a golf course. A & F contends it has a contract right to change the use of said property after December 31, 2006.
In February 2003, the Madison County Board of Supervisors again approved an amendment to the 2001 plan. This 2003 Master plan ("2003 plan"), plaintiff says, was also unaccompanied by notice and a hearing. The amendment added 6 commercial lots along Catlett Road. On September 1, 2003, A & F advised the Madison County Board of Supervisors of its intention to develop the subject property into a residential subdivision on December 31, 2006. A & F was advised by members of the Madison County Board of supervisors that development within the PUD must adhere to the Master Plan.
On March 26, 2004, A & F filed a request to amend the 2003 plan. A & F requested that it be allowed to change the use of its property within the PUD from a golf course to a residential subdivision effective December 31, 2006, and that the Madison County Board of Supervisors approve said request. The Madison County Board of Supervisors gave notice and a hearing, scheduling the hearing for April 23, 2004. The Madison County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to deny A & F's request at the hearing, citing the 1998 plan as the reason for the denial.
A & F appealed the decision to the Madison County Circuit Court requesting reversal. The Madison County Circuit Court Case is styled Civil Action No. Cl-2004-0129-C. Madison County Circuit Court Judge William E. Chapman, III, issued an Opinion and Order, dated October 25, 2004. Judge Chapman upheld the decision of the Madison County Board of Supervisors.
A & F filed this lawsuit on August 16, 2004. LCI filed its motion to intervene on October 15, 2004. On the same date, the Madison County Board of Supervisors filed its motions to dismiss and to stay.
Defendant contends that the doctrine of res judicata bars the plaintiffs cause of action before this court. In support, defendant cites Judge Chapman's opinion, dated October 25, 2004.
Res judicata is a doctrine of claim preclusion. McIntosh v. Johnson, 649 So.2d 190, 193 (Miss.1995) (overruled on other grounds); Norman v. Bucklew, 684 So.2d 1246 (Miss.1996). It precludes parties from litigating in a second action claims within the scope of the judgment of the first action. This includes claims which "were made or should have been made, in the prior suit." Id. Anderson v. LaVere, 895 So.2d 828, 832 (Miss.2004). "A prior state court decision must be given the. same preclusive effect in a subsequent federal action as it would be given by the courts of the state from which the decision arose." Bullock v. Resolution Trust Corp., 918 F.Supp. 1001, 1009 (S.D.Miss. 1995) (citing Gates v. Walker, 865 F.Supp. 1222, 1236 (S.D.Miss.1994)).
Further, four identities must be satisfied in order to establish res judicata: "(1) identity of the subject matter of the action; (2) identity of the cause of action; (3) identity of the parties; and (4) identity of the quality or character of a person against whom the claim is made." Id. Each of the above will be discussed in turn.
(1) Identity of the Subject Matter
Defendants contend that the real property contained in the 1998 plan is the subject matter of this lawsuit and plaintiffs cause of action in state court. Plaintiff contends the cause of action before this court is to void the 1998 plan, whereas its cause of action in state court is to amend the 2003 plan in order to develop its property into a residential area rather than a golf course.
This court is not persuaded the subject matter of the disputes is different. In both causes of action, the plaintiff is suing to gain approval of the Board of Supervisors for developing its property into a residential area as opposed to a golf course. Consequently, this court is persuaded the subject matter of the two suits is the same.
(2) Identity of the Cause of Action
Defendant submits that this cause of action is the same as that plaintiff brought in the state court. Plaintiff contends that the relief sought distinguishes the two causes of action since it, again, seeks to void the 1998 plan as opposed to amend the 2003 plan.
Identity of the causes of action exists where there is a commonality in the "underlying facts and circumstances upon which a claim is asserted and relief sought in the two actions." Riley v. Moreland, 537 So.2d 1348, 1354 (Miss.1989) (citing Walton v. Bourgeois, 512 So.2d 698, 702 (Miss.1987)). Where "the underlying facts and circumstances giving rise to the plaintiffs claim [in the federal action] are the same as the ones plaintiff raised in [the prior] state court action, then identity of cause of action is present." Gates, 865 F.Supp. at 1238. Bullock, 918 F.Supp. at 1009. The plaintiff concedes that the facts underlying the two causes of action are the same in its response to defendants supplemental motion to dismiss. Resp. to Def.'s Supplemental Mot. to Dismiss at 13.
Next, plaintiff claims the relief sought is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. McCullum
...federal action as it would be given by the courts of the state from which the decision arose." A & F Props., LLC v. Madison County Bd. of Supervisors, 414 F.Supp.2d 618, 623 (S. D. Miss. 2005)(quoting Bullock v. Resolution Trust Corp., 918 F.Supp. 1001, 1009 (S.D. Miss. 1995)). Mississippi'......
-
Harrison v. Diamonds
...to the two actions must be "substantially identical," but not necessarily "exactly the same." A & F Props. LLC v. Madison Cnty. Bd. Of Supervisors, 414 F. Supp. 2d 618, 624 (S.D. Miss. 2005). Despite the inclusion of two parties in Harrison II who were not named in Harrison I, there is an i......