297 So.3d 316
Miss. Ct. App.2020Background
- Carlos E. Moore was lead counsel for Lue R. Sanders in a medical‑negligence suit; Brown, Bass & Jeter associated later and then withdrew, leaving Moore as counsel of record.
- The court entered an agreed scheduling order setting trial for September 5, 2017; Moore did not object to that date or seek to withdraw until days before trial.
- On September 5, 2017 Moore did not appear; Justin Smith appeared and said Moore had a scheduling conflict (a Tennessee trial). The court reluctantly granted a continuance.
- Greenwood Leflore Hospital moved for sanctions, alleging Moore actually attended a speaking engagement (supporting Facebook excerpts) and seeking dismissal or monetary sanctions.
- The circuit court denied dismissal but sanctioned Moore $27,467.83 for attorney and expert costs; Moore’s motions for reconsideration and for an evidentiary hearing were denied or left unruled, and the Supreme Court treated Moore’s interlocutory petition as a notice of appeal.
- On appeal Moore challenged (1) failure to rule on evidentiary hearing, (2) imposition of sanctions, (3) amount of sanctions, and (4) denial of reconsideration; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by failing to rule on Moore’s motion for an evidentiary hearing | Moore: court should have held an evidentiary hearing before awarding sanctions and therefore the sanctions order was not final | Hospital: court permissibly relied on submissions and its own judgment; no hearing required under Miss. law | No error — court may assess fees on submitted verified materials and its experience; failing to separately grant an evidentiary hearing did not render the sanctions order improper or nonfinal |
| Whether sanctions should have been imposed on Moore | Moore: he committed no sanctionable act or sanctions were inappropriate | Hospital: Moore, as counsel of record, failed to appear and caused opponent expenses; sanctions appropriate | No error — court acted within its inherent authority to sanction counsel for failing to appear and causing needless expense |
| Whether the amount of sanctions awarded was reasonable | Moore: amount not shown reasonable because he was not allowed to examine the submitted costs | Hospital: submitted verified applications and costs supported the award | No error — court reasonably relied on verified submissions and its discretion; amount supported by record |
| Whether denial of Moore’s motion for reconsideration abused discretion | Moore: trial court erred and reconsideration was warranted (reasserts prior points) | Hospital: Moore did not meet Rule 59(e) standards (no new evidence or change in law) | No error — Moore failed to show intervening law, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice; denial of Rule 59(e) motion affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois Cent. Gulf R.R. Co. v. McLain, 174 So. 3d 1279 (Miss. 2015) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for sanctions review)
- Wilton Acquisitions Corp. v. First Methodist Church of Biloxi, 85 So. 3d 319 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (order leaving fees pending is not final for appeal)
- Webster v. Miss. Dep’t of Wildlife, Fisheries & Parks, 257 So. 3d 277 (Miss. 2018) (trial court has discretion in awarding attorney’s fees)
- Wyssbrod v. Wittjen, 798 So. 2d 352 (Miss. 2001) (court’s power to sanction counsel for failing to appear)
- Glover v. Jackson State Univ., 755 So. 2d 395 (Miss. 2000) (counsel who causes opponent to incur needless expense may be ordered to pay)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Tennin, 960 So. 2d 379 (Miss. 2007) (attorney‑fee awards must be reasonable and supported)
- Brooks v. Roberts, 882 So. 2d 229 (Miss. 2004) (motion for reconsideration treated as Rule 59(e) post‑judgment motion)