James D. Havard v. Tanelle Sumrall
250 So. 3d 1282
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- James and Margaret Havard sued nurse anesthetist Tanelle Sumrall for medical malpractice arising from an epinephrine injection that caused James a heart attack; they later amended to add Sumrall’s employer, the Akeso Group.
- Sumrall answered in January 2013; the Akeso Group acknowledged service but never answered. The docket shows almost two years of inactivity after early 2013.
- Sumrall moved to dismiss under M.R.C.P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute; at a January 2015 hearing the Havards’ counsel explained medical problems caused the delay.
- The circuit court dismissed the Havards’ claim against Sumrall for failure to prosecute but left claims against the Akeso Group pending; that interlocutory dismissal was initially unappealable.
- The Havards later obtained a default judgment and damages against the Akeso Group (entered Nov. 1, 2016); within 30 days they appealed the earlier dismissal of Sumrall.
- The Court of Appeals held it had jurisdiction because the default judgment finally resolved all claims, and affirmed the dismissal of Sumrall under Rule 41(b) for a clear record of delay and because lesser sanctions would not serve justice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to review the January 2015 dismissal of Sumrall | Havard: appeal from dismissal is timely after final judgment against Akeso Group | Sumrall: earlier dismissal was interlocutory and not certified under Rule 54(b), so no appellate jurisdiction | Court: jurisdiction exists because the Nov. 1, 2016 default judgment against Akeso finally resolved all claims and was entered per Rule 79(a) (Rule 58 effect) |
| Whether dismissal under M.R.C.P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute was an abuse of discretion | Havard: dismissal was improper given counsel’s medical issues and absence of prejudice to Sumrall; lesser sanctions should have been considered | Sumrall: almost two-year inactivity, discovery not pursued, and reactionary conduct justified dismissal | Court: affirmed dismissal—record shows clear, almost two-year delay; lesser sanctions would not serve justice |
Key Cases Cited
- Holder v. Orange Grove Med. Specialties P.A., 54 So. 3d 192 (Miss. 2010) (standard and factors for Rule 41(b) dismissal; delay alone can support dismissal)
- Calvert v. Griggs, 992 So. 2d 627 (Miss. 2008) (appeal as of right only after trial court disposes of all claims against all defendants)
- Woodkrest Custom Homes Inc. v. Cooper, 108 So. 3d 460 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (default judgment is conclusive and final as to issues necessary to support relief awarded)
- Beck v. Sapet, 937 So. 2d 945 (Miss. 2006) (repeated failure to comply with discovery may warrant dismissal with prejudice)
- Rigdon v. Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation, 22 So. 3d 321 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (finality requires adjudication of all issues as to all parties without further lower-court action)