 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
USF&G Insurance Co. of Mississippi v. Walls9/15/2005
sis added).
. Nearly a decade later we were even more definitive. Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Booth, 830 So. 2d 1205, 1209 (Miss. 2002), perceived "equitable class action in chancery court" as more a legal "experiment" attempted by ambitious lawyers than an established legal fact in Mississippi. Through a review of cases, we determined that this "Court did not look with favor on class actions and allowed them only under rare circumstances," most notably where "'plaintiffs sought injunctive or other equitable relief in chancery court against governmental entities.'" Id.at 1211 (quoting Guthrie T. Abbott & Pope Mallette, Complex/Mass Tort Litigation in State Courts in Mississippi, 63 Miss. L.J. 363, 393 (1994)). The cause of action was rejected, since class actions at equity "did not" survive "the adoption of the Rules." Id.(emphasis added). However, neither Marx nor Booth considered Section 11-53-37.
. Section 11-53-37 is simply a relic from the time when class actions at equity were permitted in chancery court. While this is problematic, this "Court [should be] mindful that it has the exclusive power to make rules of practice, procedure[,] and evidence." Claypool v. Mladineo, 724 So.2d 373, 388-89 (Miss. 1998) (emphasis added).
. The conflict in Claypoolis illustrative. At issue in that case was whether the Legislature could enact statutes that created privileges that might "impede both the discovery portions of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure and the privileges enumerated in the Mississippi Rules of Evidence." Id.at 377. The Court held that "where the Legislature enacts a statute creating a privilege it should be upheld, unless it conflicts with either the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure or the Mississippi Rules of Evidence." Id.at 388-89.
The case at hand.
. Section 11-53-37 explains how attorney's fees would be awarded in class actions in chancery. The only issue it directly addresses is the awarding of attorney fees if there was an equitable class action. If and when we choose to adopt a class action rule, Section 11-53-37 will become operable again, as it was decades ago. It serves no function at this moment in time because there are no class actions under the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, whether in circuit or chancery court. There is no direct conflict between the omission of Rule 23 and the Mississippi Code because Section 11-53-37 only provides for attorney's fees if there is a class action.
. At best, this statute raises an inference of the existence of class actions. However, an inference is not tantamount to a class action provision. Our Rules of Civil Procedure "apply to all civil proceedings" in circuit and chancery court. M.R.C.P. 81 (emphasis added); M.R.C.P. 1. Since there is no rule or statute which expressly or impliedly provides for class actions, we are compelled to conclude that they are not permitted in any legal proceedings in our state courts. Thus, the chancery court erred in concluding otherwise.
CONCLUSION
. This Court has the exclusive power to make rules of practice, procedure, and evidence. Accordingly, as we have not made a rule which provides for class actions, they are not a part of Mississippi practice--chancery, circuit, or otherwise. We reverse the judgment of the chancery court denying USF&G's motion to dismiss and certifying the plaintiff class, and we remand this case as an individual case to the Circuit Court of Panola County for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
. REVERSED AND REMANDED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PANOLA COUNTY.
SMITH, C.J., WALLER AND COBB, P.JJ., CARLSON, DICKINSON AND RA
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|