Riverboat Corporation of Mississippi v. Davis
Decision Date | 09 June 2022 |
Docket Number | 2020-IA-01244-SCT |
Citation | 341 So.3d 77 |
Parties | RIVERBOAT CORPORATION OF MISSISSIPPI d/b/a Golden Nugget Biloxi Hotel and Casino v. Tresyla DAVIS |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: SAMUEL DEUCALION GREGORY, Jackson, ROBERT CHRISTOPHER WHITE
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: CARLOS EUGENE MOORE, Grenada
BEFORE KITCHENS, P.J., COLEMAN AND GRIFFIS, JJ.
¶1. This is a granted interlocutory appeal stemming from the decision by the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial District of Harrison County to grant a Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) motion. Riverboat Corporation of Mississippi (Riverboat) argues that the trial court committed reversible error "by granting [Tresyla Davis's] request to reopen the case, when the two alleged instances of fraud are demonstrably incorrect and the trial court failed to consider all of the elements of fraud necessary to justify the extraordinary relief under Rule 60(b)(1) [.]"
¶2. This Court finds that Davis failed to prove all the necessary elements of fraud by clear and convincing evidence and that the trial court abused its discretion by granting the Rule 60(b)(1) motion. Therefore, we reverse the grant of the Rule 60(b)(1) motion and reinstate the summary judgment previously granted to Riverboat.
¶3. On November 27, 2014, Davis and her stepmother visited the Golden Nugget Biloxi Hotel and Casino, which is owned by Riverboat. While at the casino, Davis was playing the slot machines when the chair1 in which she was sitting fell backward. Davis claimed she suffered physical and emotional injuries as a result of the fall.
¶4. On January 27, 2015, Davis filed a premises liability action against Riverboat in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial District of Harrison County. During the discovery process, Davis submitted "only two interrogatories, one request for production of documents, and one request for admission." Davis "did not serve any written discovery related to the subject chair."
¶5. On June 21, 2016, Davis deposed Anne Mosher, the designated representative for Riverboat pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). Counsel for Davis asked the following:
Davis did not ask any more questions regarding the condition or specifications of the chair. Riverboat's counsel then asked Mosher the following regarding the chair:
The order granting Riverboat's motion for summary judgment was filed on April 13, 2017.
¶7. On October 3, 2017, Davis filed a Motion to Reopen Case and Set Aside Summary Judgment Order pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) of Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that she had "discovered fraudulent behavior/conduct on the part of Defendant [Riverboat], throughout the duration of the previous litigation." Davis "alleged that she learned from public filings in an unrelated lawsuit that the base of another slot machine chair had been altered." In the unrelated lawsuit, Johnston v. Riverboat Corp. of Mississippi ,2 the manufacturer of the sled slot chair, one of the defendants in the case, submitted supplemental responses that "stated the slot chair's quick release base [was] intended to be secured in a properly installed bracket while in use by guests." (Emphasis omitted.) Davis claimed that Riverboat had engaged in fraudulent behavior during Mosher's deposition testimony when Mosher testified that the slot chair "had no defects or malfunctions." Also, Davis claimed that, at the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, Riverboat had denied "that any modifications had been made to the sled slot chairs[.]" The next day, Davis amended her motion to reopen the case to assert that, in the Johnston case, To support her motion, Davis attached Riverboat's motion for protective order filed in the Johnston case. In the motion for protective order, "the plaintiff's lawyer in that unrelated lawsuit stated that the base of a different slot chair had been shortened five inches."3
¶8. On February 22, 2018, a hearing was held regarding Davis's motion to reopen the case and to set aside summary judgment. At the hearing, Davis argued that Mosher's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition testimony, which stated that there were no malfunctions or defects of the chair, was fraudulent and misleading because the casino's chairs had been modified. In response, Riverboat argued:
To continue reading
Request your trial