238 So. 3d 1128
Miss.2018Background
- Stacy Triplett, a Southern Hens employee, suffered emotional injury after witnessing a coworker’s death and obtained a workers’ compensation award (including a penalty for untimely payment).
- Triplett alleged Southern Hens/insurer delayed or failed to report and pay benefits; collection difficulties prompted litigation.
- Triplett I (federal): filed April 2014 against Southern Hens and Liberty Mutual for bad faith/gross negligence; dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) as to Southern Hens.
- Triplett II (Jones County Circuit Court): filed June 2015 against Southern Hens for bad-faith failure-to-report; Triplett failed to effect service within the 120-day Rule 4(h) period and did not show good cause.
- Triplett III (same court): filed December 22, 2015, alleging the same bad-faith failure-to-report claim against the same defendant; Southern Hens moved to dismiss and court ultimately dismissed Triplett III as duplicative while Triplett II remained pending until later dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing a second, substantially identical suit (Triplett III) while an earlier-filed suit (Triplett II) remains pending violates Mississippi’s prohibition on duplicative actions | Triplett: her second suit was effectively nullified by Rule 4(h) lapse, so she was not maintaining two actions at the same time | Southern Hens: Triplett II remained pending until the court formally dismissed it, so Triplett III was a duplicative, impermissible claim-splitting filing | Court: Affirmed dismissal of Triplett III as an impermissible duplicative action (plaintiff was maintaining two actions on same subject, same court, same defendant simultaneously) |
| Whether failure to serve within 120 days under M.R.C.P. 4(h) automatically terminates the action (making it a nullity without a court order) | Triplett: Rule 4(h) lapse rendered Triplett II null, so Triplett III was not duplicative | Southern Hens: Rule 4(h) lapse does not automatically dismiss the complaint; formal dismissal by the court is required | Court: Agreed with precedent that Rule 4(h) lapse does not automatically dismiss the complaint; the trial court must formally dismiss before the action is nullified (Crumpton controlling) |
| Whether filing a duplicative suit to preserve tolling/statute-of-limitations is an acceptable tactic | Triplett: contends she did not impermissibly extend procedural rights; sought to preserve claim | Southern Hens: filing duplicative suit to preserve tolling unlawfully expands procedural rights and is improper | Court: Filing the duplicative suit would have tolled limitations, so it improperly sought to extend procedural rights; plaintiff’s tactic was not allowed and dismissal stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpenter v. Kenneth Thompson Builder, Inc., 186 So. 3d 820 (Miss. 2014) (articulates Mississippi rule prohibiting maintenance of two actions on same subject against same defendant in same court simultaneously)
- Serlin v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 3 F.3d 221 (7th Cir. 1993) (affirmed dismissal of second, duplicative complaint filed after failure to timely serve; plaintiff’s rules failure—not court—caused any loss of rights)
- Crumpton v. Hegwood, 740 So. 2d 292 (Miss. 1999) (Rule 4(h) lapse does not automatically dismiss complaint; trial court must formally dismiss before action is nullified)