Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-60664/USCOURTS-ca5-14-60664-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Tupelo
Appellee
Evergreen Apartments, L.L.C., a Delaware Limited Liability Company
Appellant
Evergreen Apartments, L.L.C., an Illinois Limited Liability Company
Appellant
Fountainbleau Management Services, L.L.C.
Appellant
Tupelo POTW
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-60664

FOUNTAINBLEAU MANAGEMENT SERVICES, L.L.C., a Louisiana 

limited liability company; EVERGREEN APARTMENTS, L.L.C., an Illinois 

limited liability company; EVERGREEN APARTMENTS, L.L.C., a Delaware 

limited liability company, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

CITY OF TUPELO; TUPELO POTW, 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:13-CV-157

Before JOLLY, HIGGINSON and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

After the district court granted summary judgment in this diversity case, 

the Mississippi Supreme Court issued two opinions that alter the law relevant 

to the disposition of this case. See Boroujerdi v. City of Starkville, No. 2012-

CA-01458-SCT, 2015 WL 574802 (Miss. Feb. 12, 2015); Brantley v. City of Horn 

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. 

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 9, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-60664 Document: 00512999593 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/09/2015
No. 14-60664

Lake, 152 So. 3d 1106 (Miss. 2014). So long as the Mississippi state courts 

would apply these intervening state-court decisions retroactively, “it is the 

practice of this court to remand an issue to the trial court when there is a 

change in relevant state law during the pendency of an appeal.”1 Moorhead v. 

Mitsubishi Aircraft Int’l, Inc., 828 F.2d 278, 289 (5th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, 

we VACATE the district court’s summary-judgment order and REMAND the 

case for review in the light of Boroujerdi and Brantley and for such further 

proceedings as the district court, in its discretion, may feel are necessary and 

appropriate.2

VACATED and REMANDED.

1 The Mississippi state courts will almost certainly apply Boroujerdi and Brantley

retroactively. See Thompson v. City of Vicksburg, 813 So. 2d 717, 721 (Miss. 2002) (“We have 

clearly held that newly enunciated rules of law are applied retroactively to cases that are 

pending trial or that are on appeal, and not final at the time of the enunciation.”).

2 On remand, the district court may also wish to consider the parties’ other arguments, 

including the statute-of-limitations issue and the question of whether Tupelo POTW is a legal 

entity capable of being sued.

2

 

Case: 14-60664 Document: 00512999593 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/09/2015