Thompson v. TRUE TEMPER SPORTS, INC.
74 So. 3d 936
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Thompson appeals the Monroe County Circuit Court's dismissal of two alienation-of-affection claims against True Temper Sports, Inc.
- The circuit court dismissed the claims under Rule 12(b)(6), finding no facts showing wrongful interference with Thompson's marriage.
- The judgment dismissed only the True Temper claims; Thompson's claim against the paramour's employer Brown remained pending.
- The trial court did not issue Rule 54(b) finality language or determinations that there was no just reason for delay.
- Thompson argues the pleading standards and vicarious-liability theory should survive dismissal under Phillips (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2006).
- True Temper argues a spouse cannot hold an employer vicariously liable for extramarital conduct outside work, and that Twombly pleading standards apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 54(b) finality applies to this partial dismissal | Thompson seeks appeal of the ruling. | No Rule 54(b) finality; partial dismissal remains interlocutory. | Appeal dismissed for lack of finality. |
| Whether the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal was appealable absent Rule 54(b) | Phillips supports surviving pleading requirements. | Interlocutory ruling not final without 54(b) certification. | Interlocutory dismissal not immediately appealable. |
| Whether Thompson can pursue alienation-of-affection against employer under Phillips | Phillips permits minimal pleading showing notice and potential liability. | Offended spouse cannot hold employer liable for outsider conduct; no active interference alleged. | Not supportable under current pleading standards; dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether Twombly pleading standard governs pleading in Mississippi alienation-of-affection cases | Pleading should meet plausibility under Twombly. | Twombly stricter pleading applies; plaintiff must plead facts, not labels. | The issue is procedural; court applies standard as argued but upholds dismissal on other grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Children's Medical Group, P.A. v. Phillips, 940 So.2d 931 (Miss.2006) (addressed liability theories for alienation-of-affection)
- Anderson v. Britton & Koontz Bank, N.A., 55 So.3d 1130 (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (finality and Rule 54(b) discussion)
- Williams v. Bud Wilson's Mobile Home Serv., 887 So.2d 830 (Miss.Ct.App.2004) (Rule 54(b) finality requirement)
- State v. Bayer Corp., 32 So.3d 496 (Miss.2010) (Rule 54(b) applicability to dismissals)
- Bennett v. Pippin, 74 F.3d 578 (5th Cir.1996) (Rule 54(b) treatment in multi-claim actions)
- Indiana Lumbermen's Mut. Ins. Co. v. Curtis Mathes Mfg. Co., 456 So.2d 750 (Miss.1984) (quoting Rule 54(b) requirement for finality)