 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Smith v. Malouf8/22/2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 2/14/2000
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 8/22/2002
. In August 1991, Joe W. Smith, Jr. (Joey) and Natalie Cash Malouf (Natalie) were in a dating relationship, and Natalie became pregnant. Against Joey's wishes, Natalie decided to give the child up for adoption. Natalie then moved away, allegedly to hide from Joey while she was pregnant. Three months before the child was born, on January 14, 1992, Joey initiated legal proceedings against Natalie in the Leflore County Chancery Court seeking a declaration of paternity, order for custody of the child and injunctive relief to stop adoption proceedings within and outside Mississippi. On March 12, 1992, Joey also filed for a temporary restraining order to enjoin the commencement of adoption proceedings. On March 27, 1992, the chancellor issued a permanent injunction in the form of a final judgment which enjoined Natalie and "all who might assist her" from proceeding with an adoption.
. On April 21, 1992, the child was born in Marietta, Georgia, then taken to California. From there, the child was adopted by Canadian citizens. On June 16, 1992, Joey and his parents filed suit in the Circuit Court of Leflore County against Natalie and her parents, Alex J. Malouf, Jr. and Patricia Malouf, for intentional infliction of emotional distress, conspiring to prevent Joey from exercising his parental rights and conspiring to effect illegal adoption of a child born out of wedlock. In September 1992, the Maloufs filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under M.R.C.P. 12(b)(6), which was granted by the circuit court in October 1992. Joey appealed that decision to this Court in November 1992.
. In December 1992, Joey and Natalie agreed to the entry of an order dismissing the chancery court action. In April 1996, Joey filed a federal RICO lawsuit in Georgia alleging that Georgia residents conspired with Natalie and her parents to deprive him of his parental rights. That lawsuit was dismissed in September 1996.
. In September 1998, this Court reversed and remanded the circuit court suit. See Smith v. Malouf, 722 So.2d 490 (Miss. 1998) (Smith I). On remand, Joey filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint to add additional defendants to the suit. In February 1999, the Maloufs again filed a motion for summary judgment. In May 1999, the circuit court denied Joey's motion to amend complaint. In February 2000, the circuit court again granted the Maloufs' motion for summary judgment, finding that the agreed order dismissing the chancery court action collaterally estopped the circuit court suit for damages. It is from this ruling Joey now appeals citing the following issues:
I. WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER THE THEORY OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL.
II. WHETHER THE DISMISSAL OF JOEY'S RICO SUIT IN GEORGIA FEDERAL COURT AND THE FINAL ORDER IN CHANCERY COURT BAR HIS CLAIM FOR CIVIL CONSPIRACY UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA.
III. WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN DENYING JOEY'S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
. This Court uses a de novo standard of review in cases where summary judgment has been granted. Townsend v. Estate of Gilbert, 616 So.2d 333, 335 (Miss. 1993). The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party who will be given the benefit of every reasonable doubt. Id.
DISCUSSION
I. WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER THE THEORY OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL.
. The circuit court found that the agreed order entered in chancery cou
Page 1 2 3 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|