Jerry Kennedy v. Jefferson County, Mississippi
689 F. App'x 371
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jerry Kennedy was terminated by Jefferson County Hospital and denied unemployment benefits after an MDES ALJ found he was fired for misconduct; his administrative appeal to the MDES Board failed and he did not seek judicial review of that administrative decision.
- Kennedy later sued in state court (breach of contract among other claims) against the Hospital; the case was removed to federal court.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Hospital, reasoning Kennedy was precluded from collaterally attacking the MDES misconduct finding because he could have appealed it directly.
- Kennedy moved under Rule 59(e), arguing an intervening Mississippi Supreme Court decision (Linde) required a different outcome; the district court denied the motion.
- Kennedy appealed the denial of the Rule 59(e) motion; the Fifth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kennedy may collaterally attack the MDES misconduct finding in his contract suit | Kennedy argued a subsequent Mississippi decision (Linde) changed controlling law and permits relief | Hospital argued collateral attack is barred when the plaintiff could have pursued a direct administrative appeal | Court held collateral attack is barred; Cox controls and Linde does not alter that rule |
| Whether Linde constitutes an intervening change in controlling law warranting Rule 59(e) relief | Kennedy claimed Linde changed the law relevant to his ability to challenge the administrative ruling | Hospital contended Linde addressed different legal questions and did not overrule or address Cox | Court held Linde did not address Cox’s core rule and is not an intervening change in controlling law |
| Whether Rule 59(e) relief is appropriate generally | Kennedy argued the Rule 59(e) standard (intervening change in law) was met | Hospital argued none of the Rule 59(e) grounds (change in law, new evidence, manifest error) were satisfied | Court held Rule 59(e) relief was not warranted under any applicable ground |
| Standard of review for denial of Rule 59(e) motion | N/A (procedural) | N/A (procedural) | Court applied abuse-of-discretion standard and found the district court’s decision reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for Rule 59(e) motions and procedural principles)
- Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Bright, 34 F.3d 322 (5th Cir. 1994) (abuse-of-discretion standard requires district court decision to be reasonable)
- Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 702 F.3d 177 (5th Cir. 2012) (grounds for amending judgment under Rule 59(e))
- Cox v. DeSoto Cty. Miss., 564 F.3d 745 (5th Cir. 2009) (a litigant cannot collaterally attack a state administrative decision when a direct appeal was available)
- Linde Health Care Staffing, Inc. v. Claiborne County Hospital, 198 So.3d 318 (Miss. 2016) (addressed arbitration-act and relief-from-judgment timing and recognition of foreign judgments; court held it did not alter Cox’s collateral-attack rule)