Tom Stewart Lee

The case involved plaintiffs suing BankPlus in Mississippi state court for breach of contract, misrepresentation, estoppel, and injunctive relief, alleging the bank failed to honor a loan restructuring agreement on multiple business and personal loans. After several plaintiffs filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy petitions, BankPlus removed the action to federal district court based on bankruptcy jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to abstain and remand, finding that mandatory abstention applied because the claims were premised on state law, were non-core proceedings merely related to the bankruptcies, could not have been brought in federal court absent the bankruptcy filings, and could be timely adjudicated in state court.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved plaintiff Phylisha Young suing her insurance company Safeway and its local agent Mitchell in Mississippi state court after Safeway denied coverage for damages from her son's car accident, claiming the policy was void due to misrepresentations on the application. Safeway removed the case to federal court, arguing that the resident agent Mitchell was improperly joined to defeat diversity jurisdiction. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, holding that Mississippi law provides a reasonable possibility of recovery against the agent on claims of negligent misrepresentation regarding the application process, meaning joinder was proper and diversity jurisdiction did not exist.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involves Mississippi-based pharmaceutical companies Cypress and its subsidiary Hawthorne suing several affiliated testing firms (CRS and others) for alleged failures in conducting bioequivalence studies on cough and cold drugs under a 2008 contract governed by New Jersey law. The studies, performed partly in Missouri and Texas with reports sent to Mississippi, led to FDA concerns over one ingredient, delayed approvals, and later revelations about an FDA inspection of a testing facility. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2) and failure to state a claim under 12(b)(6), plus to dismiss Hawthorne's claims. The court denied the jurisdiction motion as to CRS but granted it for the other defendants due to insufficient minimum contacts with Mississippi, denied the 12(b)(6) motion, and dismissed Hawthorne's claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves plaintiffs Willie and Joyce Harried suing Illinois Central Railroad and its attorneys, Daniel Mulholland and the Forman Perry law firm, in Mississippi state court for claims including abuse of process, malicious prosecution, conspiracy, and emotional distress. The suit stemmed from a prior federal fraud action by Illinois Central against Willie Harried over alleged misrepresentations in a 2003 asbestos-related FELA settlement, which ended with a jury verdict for Harried. Defendants removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, arguing improper joinder of the in-state attorney defendants, and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The court denied the motion to remand and granted dismissal, finding no reasonable possibility of recovery against Mulholland and Forman Perry because plaintiffs could not establish essential elements such as favorable termination on the merits for malicious prosecution or viable abuse of process claims based on the alleged conduct. The decision applied Fifth Circuit standards for improper joinder, evaluating whether the complaint stated cognizable claims under Mississippi law.

proceduretorts & liability

In this case, plaintiff Susan Hewitt sued Wyeth after being diagnosed with breast cancer in 1998, alleging that her cancer was caused by hormone therapy drugs Prempro and Premarin manufactured by the defendants, and asserting various products liability claims. Wyeth moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claims were barred by Mississippi's three-year statute of limitations for latent injuries under Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-49, which begins to run upon discovery of the injury itself. The court granted the motion, holding that under binding Mississippi Supreme Court precedent such as Angle v. Koppers, Inc., the limitations period accrued at the time of Hewitt's cancer diagnosis in October 1998 rather than upon later discovery of a potential causal link to the medications, making the December 2002 filing untimely. The decision relied on the plain language of the statute, which does not require knowledge of the injury's cause for accrual.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Grant v. Eaton Disability Long-Term Disability Plan, plaintiff Sandra Grant sued the Eaton Corporation Long-Term Disability Plan under ERISA after her claim for long-term disability benefits was denied. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment and granted the defendant's motion while denying the plaintiff's. The core reasoning was that Grant failed to meet the plan's eligibility requirements: she had not satisfied the six-month waiting period because she lacked a continuous period of approved disability after her short-term disability claim was denied and she returned to work, and she also failed to submit her long-term disability application within the required one-year deadline after her last day of active work. The court found these deficiencies dispositive and declined to remand the case for further administrative review.

labor & employment

The case involved homeowners Brian and Rachel Bishop who sued their insurer Alfa Mutual Insurance Company after it denied coverage for damages to their home and personal property caused by defective Chinese-manufactured drywall used in construction, as well as related health issues and relocation costs. Alfa moved for summary judgment, arguing that the policy did not cover these losses due to various exclusions. The court granted the motion, holding that the policy's exclusions for inherent vice, latent defect, corrosion, contamination, and defects in construction materials applied to the drywall damage, and that losses to personal property were not caused by a covered peril. The court reasoned that the damage directly resulted from the defective drywall, triggering the exclusions, and no ensuing loss provision provided coverage.

property

Lafayette Insurance Company sued for a declaratory judgment that its commercial general liability policy issued to Absolute Foundation Solutions provided no coverage or duty to defend against claims by the Peerbooms for damage to their home allegedly caused by Absolute's negligence in raising the structure. The court granted Lafayette's motion for summary judgment. Applying Mississippi law under the eight-corners test, the court found that the alleged property damage was subject to the policy's business-risk exclusions j(5) and j(6) because it arose from the insured's work on the house itself, and therefore the policy did not cover the claims. The court also noted that additional discovery was unnecessary as it would not affect this conclusion.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

This case involves defendants Sylvia Redd and Earnest Rankin, who were charged in a superseding indictment with conspiracy to violate federal anti-kickback laws and to embezzle or convert funds from a health care benefit program, as well as substantive violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 669 and 641, based on allegations that they received kickbacks for referring Medicare beneficiaries for power wheelchairs between 2003 and 2005. The defendants moved to dismiss the indictment as time-barred under the five-year statute of limitations, for failure to allege essential elements of the crimes, and as multiplicitous. The court denied the motions to dismiss on timeliness and sufficiency grounds, finding that the alleged overt acts of receiving kickbacks in 2005 fell within the limitations period and that the indictment adequately stated the offenses, but granted Redd's motion to quash the indictment as multiplicitous to the extent it charged multiple counts for the same conduct. The court reasoned that the receipt of remuneration constituted overt acts supporting the conspiracy charge and that certain counts overlapped in a manner requiring dismissal of duplicates.

criminal lawhealthcareprocedure

The case involved a negligence lawsuit filed by Tammy Diaz in Mississippi state court against Walter Sepulveda, a federal employee, for injuries from a 2005 car accident on Interstate 55. Sepulveda removed the case to federal court under the Federal Tort Claims Act and Westfall Act after the Attorney General certified he was acting within the scope of his employment while traveling to provide Hurricane Katrina relief; the United States was substituted as defendant. The district court granted the government's motion for summary judgment, holding that the FTCA provided the exclusive remedy and that Diaz had failed to present a timely administrative claim to the appropriate agency within two years as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) and § 2401(b), a jurisdictional prerequisite. The court rejected arguments for equitable tolling, finding no due diligence or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the omission.

torts & liabilityfederal powerprocedure

The case involved Leslie Statham Easterling, who was terminated from her position as a retail sales associate at AT & T Mobility after seven years of employment, allegedly for violating the company's attendance policy while she was pregnant. Easterling sued AT & T, her supervisor, and the company's FMLA administrator, claiming violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, along with state-law claims for wrongful termination, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. She sought partial summary judgment based on collateral estoppel from a prior favorable ruling by the Mississippi Employment Security Commission on unemployment benefits, but the court denied that motion, finding the administrative decision did not meet the requirements for preclusive effect due to differing burdens of proof and lack of identical issues. The court also denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the federal claims, concluding there were genuine issues of material fact, but granted it on the state claims because they were barred by Mississippi's at-will employment doctrine, the statute of limitations, and the workers' compensation exclusivity provision.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

In Milone v. Flowers, three plaintiffs facing pending DUI charges in Mississippi justice courts sued state officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants' policy, custom, and practice of failing to disclose exculpatory or favorable evidence violated their due process rights under Brady v. Maryland and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Defendants moved to dismiss, asserting that the requested relief was barred by the Anti-Injunction Act and that the court should abstain under the Younger doctrine. The court dismissed the action, holding that Younger abstention applied because the state criminal proceedings were ongoing, involved important state interests in enforcing criminal laws, and afforded plaintiffs an adequate opportunity to raise their federal constitutional claims in the state courts through trial de novo on appeal.

criminal lawcivil rightsfederal powerprocedure

Vineyard Investments, LLC sued the City of Madison after the city denied its application for a building permit to open a package liquor store in a shopping center, despite the State Tax Commission approving the required liquor license. The city based its denial on concerns from neighboring merchants about having multiple liquor stores in one location, potential economic harm, and inconsistency with community planning goals. Vineyard claimed violations of substantive due process and equal protection under the Constitution. The district court granted the city's motion for summary judgment and denied Vineyard's cross-motion, concluding that the city's decision was rationally related to legitimate governmental interests and supported by the record.

business & regulatorypropertycivil rights

Peoples Bank sued Banclnsure for denying coverage under a Financial Institution Bond after the bank incurred losses on a loan to TPI due to undisclosed prior liens on the collateral property and collusive conduct by attorney Dwayne Deer and borrower Todd Phillips. The bank sought contractual damages, extra-contractual damages, and punitive damages for alleged bad faith. Both parties filed motions for partial summary judgment, with the bank seeking judgment on liability and damages and Banclnsure seeking judgment that certain categories of damages were not recoverable. The court granted and denied the motions in part, concluding there were fact issues on coverage but that certain claimed losses were not recoverable under the bond or as extra-contractual or punitive damages because the insurer's investigation provided an arguable basis for denial.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a products liability suit filed by Vanessa Braswell in Mississippi state court on behalf of her son, alleging injuries from a wheelchair handle-grip failure against manufacturer Invacare and local seller The Medical Store. Invacare removed the action to federal court on diversity grounds, arguing fraudulent joinder of the non-diverse seller under Mississippi's innocent-seller statute, and the court previously dismissed The Medical Store after finding no viable claim. Plaintiff later filed a second motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 seeking to remand or amend, citing new deposition testimony that the wheelchair had been leased (not sold) and that the seller may have had knowledge of a defect. The court denied the motion, reasoning that plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of The Medical Store and the running of the statute of limitations barred revival of claims against it.

proceduretorts & liability

In Crowley v. Adams & Edens, P.A., plaintiff April Crowley sued her mortgage lender CitiMortgage and the foreclosure law firm Adams & Edens after missing payments due to job loss, applying for a loss mitigation program, and then facing foreclosure proceedings despite alleged assurances that enrollment in the program would prevent foreclosure. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the plaintiff's claims, which centered on alleged misrepresentations and estoppel. The court granted both motions, holding that the claims were barred by the statute of frauds and that the plaintiff could not prove the detrimental reliance required for estoppel.

propertybusiness & regulatory

In this case, former employee June Polacek sued her employer Pharma Pac, LLC, its owners, and Kemper County, alleging that the company defendants falsely reported theft to authorities in retaliation for her prior whistleblowing on one owner's misconduct at a previous job, leading to her arrest, high bail, indictment, and eventual nolle prosse without probable cause. She asserted federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourth and Eighth Amendment violations against the county and the private defendants, plus state-law tort claims against the private defendants. The court granted the private defendants' motion to dismiss the § 1983 claim, finding that their conduct did not constitute state action under the joint-action test because they did not willfully participate in joint action with state officials. It denied dismissal of the state-law claims, however, exercising supplemental jurisdiction over them as part of the same case or controversy as the remaining federal claims against the county.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

This case involved Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company's request for a declaratory judgment that its commercial general liability policy did not cover a $2 million judgment entered against Tri County Contractors, Inc. The judgment arose after Tri County was held in contempt for willfully failing to provide a proper sworn response to a writ of execution aimed at collecting on an earlier tort judgment from a 2005 car accident involving a minor driver; under Mississippi statute, the company became liable for the full amount of the underlying judgment as a sanction. The court granted Nationwide's motion for summary judgment, holding that the policy's coverage for sums the insured becomes obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury did not apply, since Tri County's liability was imposed solely for its post-accident contemptuous conduct rather than for the bodily injury itself.

torts & liabilityprocedure

National Casualty Company filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that it owed no duty to defend or indemnify Franklin County under a 2008 law enforcement liability policy in connection with a civil rights lawsuit brought by the relatives of two men murdered in 1964. The underlying Moore case alleged that county sheriff's department officials conspired with Ku Klux Klan members in the kidnappings and killings. On the County's motion to dismiss, the court held that the insurer's complaint failed to state a plausible claim that it had no duty to defend, because the policy's deliberate acts and prior knowledge exclusions did not clearly bar coverage based on the allegations in the Moore complaint. The court therefore dismissed the duty-to-defend claim but stayed the duty-to-indemnify claim as unripe until the underlying litigation concludes.

civil rightsprocedurebusiness & regulatory

Mortensen Construction, a Minnesota company, sued Grinnell Mutual, an Iowa insurer, in Mississippi state court after Grinnell denied coverage for a claim arising from Mortensen's work on a Mississippi project. Grinnell removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted the motion, holding that Mississippi's long-arm statute did not authorize jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant in a suit by a nonresident plaintiff. The court reasoned that the contract prong was inapplicable because it requires a contract with a Mississippi resident, the doing-business prong was unavailable to nonresident plaintiffs, and the alleged tort of refusing to pay the claim did not occur in Mississippi.

proceduretorts & liability