Michael Prendergast v. City of Waveland, Mississippi
146 So. 3d 1021
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- The Waveland Board of Aldermen voted on Jan 4, 2011 to terminate eleven city employees, including four police officers (Prendergast, Ladner, Cowand, Parker), citing budgetary reasons; notices were sent Jan 5.
- The officers faxed “Appeal of Termination” letters to the Waveland Civil Service Commission (created by municipal Ordinance 251) on Jan 12 and requested hearing dates on Feb 23; the Commission did not respond.
- The officers filed a mandamus petition in circuit court (first petition), later dismissed it, then filed a second petition seeking an order compelling the Commission to hold hearings and alleging wrongful termination.
- The City moved to dismiss the second mandamus petition as untimely and an improper collateral attack, and filed a counterclaim under the Mississippi Litigation Accountability Act for attorney’s fees.
- The Hancock County Circuit Court dismissed the officers’ mandamus petition, reasoning Ordinance 251 excluded layoffs for budgetary reasons from Commission appeals and, in any event, the officers had an adequate remedy by appealing the Board’s minutes to the circuit court under Miss. Code § 11-51-75; the court also dismissed the City’s counterclaim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus should compel the Commission to hear their appeals | Appellants: they properly appealed to the Commission by fax and Commission’s failure to act justifies mandamus | City: Ordinance 251 excludes budgetary layoffs from Commission review; appeal should have been to circuit court via bill of exceptions | Held: Dismissed—Ordinance excludes budgetary layoffs and appellants had adequate remedy to appeal to circuit court under §11-51-75; mandamus inappropriate |
| Whether the Commission’s nonresponse converted the process into a circuit-court appeal | Appellants: Commission inaction should be treated as an appealable denial or converted to a circuit-court proceeding | City: No — appeal to Commission is distinct; proper route was direct appeal to circuit court | Held: Dismissed—appeal to Commission is not equivalent to circuit-court appeal; conversion improper |
| Whether appellants’ failure to timely pursue a bill of exceptions entitles them to mandamus | Appellants: should have been allowed to file a bill of exceptions or be given opportunity to correct form | City: Failure to file timely bill of exceptions bars their remedy; mandamus not available | Held: Dismissed—failure to pursue available statutory remedy does not create entitlement to extraordinary mandamus relief |
| Whether the circuit court erred in dismissing the City’s counterclaim under the Mississippi Litigation Accountability Act | City: dismissal without notice or hearing violated procedural rights and should be reversed/remanded | Appellants: argued dismissal appropriate; appellees did not brief counterclaim issue | Held: Dismissed as procedurally barred—City failed to cite authority on appeal so cross-appeal was procedurally barred; no reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. Bd. of Sup'rs of Pearl River Cnty., 987 So. 2d 984 (Miss. 2008) (elements required for writ of mandamus)
- Lange v. City of Batesville, 972 So. 2d 11 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (public boards speak through their minutes)
- Bd. of Sup'rs of Rankin Cnty. v. Lee, 113 So. 194 (Miss. 1927) (appeal to circuit court is adequate remedy from board decisions)
- Bowling v. Madison County Bd. of Supervisors, 724 So. 2d 431 (Miss. Ct. App. 1998) (formal defects in pleadings amenable to amendment)
- State ex rel. Stanley v. Cook, 66 N.E.2d 207 (Ohio 1946) (failure to timely pursue remedy does not entitle litigant to extraordinary mandamus)