The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down three opinions today and not one is pedestrian. The first involves whether the loser in an insurance coverage dec action can come back after the mandate in the dec action and after being vindicated in the underlying liability action, to get relief under Rule 60(b) from the no-coverage judgment. In the next case, the Court weighs in on the Jackson mayor’s attempt to veto the city council’s inaction on the garbage collection contract. The third case is an appeal of an order of contempt and order denying recusal after the attorney failed to appear at trial after representing to the circuit court that he had Covid.
Scruggs v. Farmland Mut. Ins. Co., 2021-CA-00877-SCT (Civil – Insurance)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion, holding that the mandate rule deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction to entertain a Rule 60(b) motion twenty years after the Supreme Court’s opinion and mandate.
(9-0)
CONTEXT – The facts make this ruling a bit more interesting than the holding suggests. Many years go, the plaintiffs (Scruggses) lost an insurance coverage dec action in state court 20 years ago. Coverage had been denied because the Scruggses were accused of committing intentional acts by Monsanto. The Scruggses then prevailed in Monsanto’s federal lawsuit against them. I’ll let the Supremes take it from here:
Lumumba v. City Council of Jackson, 2022-CA-00855-SCT (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming the special chancellor’s summary judgment in favor of the city council in this episode of Jackson’s garbage-collection saga, holding that the mayor did not have legal authority to veto a non-action or negative vote of the city counsel the city council’s non-ratification of the garbage collection contract presented by the mayor.
(9-0)
NOTE – The Court also held that the trial court did not err in allowing the city council to admit exhibits (public records that had been produced to the mayor) at the MSJ hearing that were not yet filed in the record of that case and that the chancellor did not err in denying the mayor’s motion for additional findings because the mayor could not both object to the court’s consideration of the city council’s exhibits while also asking the court to consider the mayor’s extrinsic evidence.
In Re: Ali M. Shamsiddeen, 2021-CA-01217-SCT (Civil – Other)
Affirming order of contempt and order denying recusal, holding that the trial court did not err in finding defense counsel in contempt for failing to appear at a pretrial conference (in person or virtually, after being given that opportunity) or at the trial because defense counsel said he had COVID but only provided a vague medical excuse and quarantine order but refused to provide medical documentation of the diagnosis.
(7-2: Kitchens dissented, joined by King)
NOTE – Here is the email the attorney sent to the court on the eve of trial.
Other Orders
In Re: Local Rules, 89-R-99015-SCT (granting motion to amend Tenth Chancery Court District’s local rules)
Shannon v. Shannon, 2020-CT-00847-SCT (dismissing previously-granted cert sua sponte)
Simmons v. Jackson County, 2020-CT-01014-SCT (denying cert)
Young v. Freese & Goss PLLC, 2020-CT-01280-SCT (denying cert)
Boyd v. State, 2021-CT-00066-SCT (denying cert)
Turner & Associates P.L.L.C. v. Estate of Watkins, 2021-CT-00258-SCT (denying cert)
Mississippi Appeals Blog 