284 So.3d 772
Miss. Ct. App.2019Background
- On Sept. 14, 2013, Howard was assaulted twice at the Claiborne County Convention Center during a post‑game party; he alleges he was stabbed in the neck and injured.
- Walker (doing business as Rolin Enterprises LLC) owned/operated the Convention Center and rented it for the event; Moore rented or otherwise controlled the event premises.
- Security guard Norrell intervened after the first fight, separated parties, escorted Howard outside, and allegedly failed to stop the second attack in the parking lot.
- Howard sued Walker and Rolin (among others) for negligence for failing to maintain safe premises and to protect against third‑party assaults; Norrell was also named but did not answer or otherwise participate fully in the proceedings.
- Walker and Rolin moved for summary judgment asserting no duty or notice of violent conditions; the circuit court granted summary judgment and later certified the judgment under M.R.C.P. 54(b).
- Howard’s attempts to obtain additional discovery (Rule 56(f), subpoenaed call logs, motions to set aside and to compel) were denied; Howard’s prior appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the summary judgment did not resolve claims against all parties until Rule 54(b) certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Walker/Rolin owed a duty to protect Howard from third‑party assault | Howard argued there was evidence (police/call logs, Norrell’s statement) showing an "atmosphere of violence" or notice of violent actors, creating a duty | Walker/Rolin argued no evidence of actual/constructive knowledge of assailant’s violent nature or an atmosphere of violence; thus no duty existed | Court affirmed summary judgment for Walker/Rolin — Howard failed to show facts creating duty or notice |
| Whether the circuit court abused discretion by denying Rule 56(f) additional discovery | Howard sought more time to obtain police/sheriff records and depose Norrell to rebut summary judgment | Walker/Rolin argued those materials were available before the summary‑judgment hearing and Howard delayed; consideration now would be untimely | Court affirmed denial — materials were untimely and Rule 56(c) requires filing/serving evidence before hearing |
| Whether the court erred in denying motion to set aside summary judgment / to compel discovery | Howard argued that failure to secure Norrell’s deposition and late production of records warranted setting aside judgment | Walker/Rolin argued allowing reconsideration would permit a second bite and prejudice them; discovery stayed and Rule 54(b) certification proper | Court affirmed denial — no basis to reopen; permitting reconsideration would be improper |
| Whether Rule 54(b) certification and stay of discovery were proper | Howard opposed final certification and stay because some discovery remained and related claims persisted against Norrell | Walker/Rolin sought finality and protection from ongoing discovery while appeal pursued | Court affirmed certification and stay as proper; judgment against Walker/Rolin final under Rule 54(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Jackson, 179 So. 3d 1037 (Miss. 2015) (summary‑judgment standard; moving party must show no genuine issue of material fact)
- Corley v. Evans, 835 So. 2d 30 (Miss. 2003) (landowner liability for third‑party assault requires actual/constructive knowledge of assailant’s violent nature or an atmosphere of violence)
- Levens v. Campbell, 733 So. 2d 753 (Miss. 1999) (appellate court reviews summary judgment de novo and views evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Lawrence v. Lawrence, 956 So. 2d 251 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (matters relied on at summary judgment must be filed and served prior to the hearing; failure is fatal)
- Howard v. Rolin Enters. LLC, 224 So. 3d 1264 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (prior dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because judgment did not dispose of all parties or include Rule 54(b) certification)