 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wal-Mart Super Center v. Long6/26/2003
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED AND REMANDED - 06/26/2003
. Eva Long filed a complaint in the County Court of Lee County against Wal-Mart Super Center (Wal-Mart) seeking $75,000 for injuries she suffered in an accident involving a mechanical door. Over a year later, she requested leave to increase the ad damnum clause from $75,000 to $750,000; to transfer jurisdiction to the circuit court; and to add additional defendants. The trial court granted leave to amend and transferred the case to circuit court. The county court's order was stayed, and this Court granted the defendants permission to file this interlocutory appeal, see M.R.A.P. 5., which presents two issues: (1) whether the county court erred by granting leave to amend; and (2) do county courts have the authority to transfer cases to the circuit court. This Court affirms and remands.
FACTS
. On August 30, 1998, Long suffered a broken hip after she was allegedly struck by an automatic door at the Wal-Mart Super Center in Tupelo. She filed suit on July 20, 2000 in the County Court of Lee County seeking $75,000 damages. Wal-Mart filed a third-party complaint against Besam, Inc., the manufacturer of the automatic-door. (We will refer to Wal-Mart and Besam collectively as "Wal-Mart".)
. On July 27, 2001, Long requested leave to amend the ad damnum clause of her complaint, to join the store's manager as an additional defendant, and to transfer the matter to circuit court. A telephonic hearing was conducted on August 17, 2001. Opposing the request, Wal- Mart argued that because it was not sought until after the expiration of the one-year deadline for removal to federal court, Long delayed her request in an effort to prevent them from exercising their right to removal. They submitted that this was a "classic example of forum manipulation" and that because they may not now seek removal, they would suffer actual prejudice if the decision granting the amendment is affirmed.
. Long argued that the amendment would not prejudice Wal-Mart's defense. Counsel for Long insisted that there was no dilatory motive or bad faith for the delay and assured the court that the delay was unintentional.
. Ultimately, the county court held that the delay did not cause Wal- Mart to suffer actual prejudice. The county court granted Long's request to amend the ad damnum clause and ordered the matter transferred to circuit court, who would have to decide whether to allow the store manager to be joined.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
. Motions for leave to amend a complaint are left to the sound discretion of trial court. Moeller v. Am. Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co., 812 So.2d 953, 961 (Miss. 2002) (citing Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 730 So.2d 574 (Miss. 1998)(collecting authorities)). The Court reviews such determinations under an abuse of discretion standard. Moeller, 812 So.2d at 961 (collecting authorities). Unless convinced that trial court abused its discretion, the Court is without authority to reverse. Id.
. Although the trial court has discretion to allow an amendment, and should do so freely under the proper circumstances, it should not allow amendment when to do so would prejudice the defendant. Johnson, 730 So.2d at 579; Hester v. Bandy, 627 So.2d 833, 839 (Miss.1993).
ANALYSIS
I. DID THE COUNTY COURT ERR IN ALLOWING THE PLAINTIFF TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT?
. The first issue is whether the Wal-Mart suffered "actual prejudice" after Long was allowed to amend her complaint. This requires the Court to consider what bearing the federal right to removal has on the sta
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|