I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 9 - CA- 0 0 6 0 3 - S CT THELM A R. KOES TL ER AND LEO C. ( M ICKEY) KOES T L ER , DE CE

AS ED , BY AN D T HROU GH THELM A R. KOES TL ER
v. M I S S I S S I P P I BA P T I S T H E A L T H S Y S T EM S , I N C .; BA P T I S T M EM O R I A L M ED IC A L C EN T ER , I N C .; BA PTIST BEH

AV IO RA L H

EA LTH SER VICES; W I LLIAM S. CO O K, JR. , M

. D . , P. A. ; W

I LLIAM S. C O O K , JR . , M . D . , IN D IV ID U A L L Y A N D / O R IN H IS CAPAC I TY AS AN

EM PLOY EE O F M

I SS I SS I PPI BA P T IST M ED IC A L S Y S T EM S , IN C . , A N D / O R IN HI SCA P AC I T Y A SAN

EMPL OYE

E O F M I S S I S S I P P I BA P T I S T M ED IC A L C EN T ER , I N C ., AND/ OR I N H I SCAP ACI TY A SM

EDICAL DI RECTOR OF BAPT

I S T S ENIOR BEHAVIORAL H E A L T H S ER V IC ES; K H A R I A . O M O L A RA , P.C

.; KH ARI A. OM OLA RA, M

. D. , I ND I VI DU ALLY AND/ OR I N H I SCAP ACI TY A SAN EM

PL OYEE O F M I SSI SSI PPI BA PTIST H

EA LTH SYST EM S, I NC. , AND/

OR I N H I SCAP ACI TY A SAN EM PL OYEE OF M

I S S I S S I PP I BAP TI S T M EDICAL CENTER, I

NC. , AND/

OR I N H I SCAP ACI TY A S CONTRACTOR OF BAPT I S T BEHAVIORAL H E A L T H S ER V IC ES; GRA C

E S C O T T

, R .N ., I NDI VI DUALLY

AND/ OR I N H ER CAP ACI TY A S AN EM PLO Y EE O F M

I SSI SSI PPI BA PTIST HEALT H SYS TEMS, I

NC. , AND/

OR I N H ER CAPAC I TY AS AN

EM PLOY EE O F M

I SS I SS I PPI BA P T IST M ED IC A L C EN T ER , IN C . , A N D / O R IN H ER CA PA CITY A S EM PLO Y EE O F B AP TI

ST BEHAV IORAL HEA L T

H S ER VICES; T

I FF AN Y P A R K ER , L . S. W

. , IN D IV ID U A L L Y A N D / O R IN HER CA P

AC I T Y A SAN

EMPL OYE

E O F M I S S I S S I P P I BA P T I S T H E A L T H S Y S T EM S , I N C ., AND/ OR I N H ER CAP ACI TY A SAN EM

PL OYEE OF M I S S I S S I PP I BAP TI S T M EDICAL CENTER,

### 2

I NC. , AND/

OR I N H ER CAP ACI TY A SEM

PL OYEE O F B AP TI

ST B EH AV IO RA L H

EA LTH SER VICES; B E C K Y IV E Y , O . T . , IN D IV ID U A L L Y A N D / O R IN HER CA P

AC I T Y A SAN

EMPL OYE

E O F M I S S I S S I P P I BA P T I S T H E A L T H S Y S T EM S , I N C ., AND/ OR I N H ER CAP ACI TY A SAN EM

PL OYEE OF M I S S I S S I PP I BAP TI S T M EDICAL CENTER, I NC. , AND/

OR I N H ER CAP ACI TY A SEM

PL OYEE O F B AP TI

ST B EH AV IO RA L H

EA LTH SER VICES; S. I NM AN, R. N. , I

NDI VI DUALLY

AND/ OR I N H ER CAPAC I TY AS AN

EM PLOY EE O F M

I SS I SS I PPI BA P T IST H E A L T H S Y S T EM S , IN C . , A N D / O R IN HER CA P

AC I T Y A SAN

EMPL OYE

E O F M I S S I S S I P P I BA P T I S T M ED IC A L C EN T ER , I N C ., AND/ OR I N H ER CAP ACI TY A SAN EM

PL OYEE O F B AP TI

ST B EH AV IO RA L H

EA LTH SER VICES; AN D STACE Y ASH

LEY, I ND I VI DU ALLY
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 03/ 18/ 2009 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. W
. SW AN YER GER COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT S : M AR CI E T
. S OUT HE RL AND BR ANAN P
. S OUT HE RL AND ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LE ES : EUGENE R. NAY LOR R E X M
. S H A N N O N , III A N A STA SI A G
. J O N ES CL I F F OR D B
. AM M ONS L O R R A IN E W
. B O Y K IN W H IT M A N B
. JO H N S O N , III FRAN K F. FARM ER NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - P ERS ONA L I NJ URY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 10/ 07/ 2010 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: G R A V E S, P . J. , D I C K I N SO N A N D C H A N D L E R , JJ. DI CK I NSON, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. Af

t e rv o l u n t a r i l y s e e k i n g t r e a t me n ta ta me n t a l
- h e a l th f a c i l i ty , Th e l ma Ko e s t l e r c l a i ms sh e c h a n g e d h e r m in d a n d d e m a n d e d th a t sh e b e r e le a s e d . B e c a u se th e fa c ili ty re fu se d toThelm a successfully appeale d her civil commitment in Ko est ler v. Ko est ler , 976 So. 2d 372 1 (Mi ss. Ct . App . 2 00 8). Miss. R. Civ. P. 41. 2 

### 3 r el eas e her , s he f

i l ed s ui tagai ns tnum er ous def endant s, all egi ng s ever al caus es of act i on, i ncl udi ng f

al s e i m pr i s onm ent . T he def endant s fi l ed a m ot i on f ors um m ary j udgm entbas ed i n p a r to n t h e ru n n i n g o f t h e s t a tu t e o f

l i mi t a t i o n s . W e a f

f i r m. BA CKGROUND ¶ 2
. O n O c to b e r 2 , 2 0 0 6 , a t t h e u rg in g o f h e r c h ild re n , T h e lm a K o e stle r v o lu n tar ily admi t t ed her sel f t o M i s s i s s i ppi B apt i s tM edi cal C ent er( “B apt i s t ”) f ort r eatm entof

w hat T hel m a ca l l ed “mi l d depr es s i on” ca us ed by the i m m i nentdeath of herhus band of

m or e than f i f t y year s . She cl ai m s s he cha nged herm i nd on t he s ame day s he w as admi t t ed, and d e m a n d e d to b e re lea se d , b u t h e r d o c to r re fu se d h e r re q u e st, o rd e rin g in ste a d th a t sh e b e h e ld i n a l ocked w ar d. ¶ 3
. O n O c to b e r 1 1 , 2 0 0 6 , T h e lm a ’s d a u g h ter filed an aff id a v it fo r civ il co m m itm e n t w ith t he H i nds C ount y C hance r y C l erk. O n O ct ober16, 2006, a s peci al m as t erconduct ed a hear i ng w hi ch r es ul t ed i n an or derof c i vi l c om m i t m ent . T hel m a w as then tr ans f err ed t o the 1 M i s s i s s i ppi St at e H os pi t al on O ct ober24, 2006, and w as r el eas ed on N ovember3, 2006. ¶4
. O n O ctob er 1, 20 0 7 , T h elm a fi led s u itag ains t her d o ctors, B ap ti st, an d B ap ti st’ s staff, al l egi ng f

al s e i m pr i s onm ent , as s aul tand batt ery, i nvas i on of pr i vacy, i nt ent i onal i nf l i ct i on of emot i onal di s t r es s , and l os s of cons or t i um . O n J anuary 29, 2008, pur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 41, T hel m a vol unt ar i l y dis m i s s ed hercompl ai ntand r ef i l ed on 2 J anuary 30, 2008.Moss v. Batesville Casket Co. , 935 So. 2d 393, 398 (Miss. 2006) ( citati ons omitted). 3 M. R. C. P. 56 (c)
. 4 Marshall v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co. , 7 So. 3d 210, 213 (Mi ss. 2009) (ci ting Ch amp lu vier 5 v. Beck , 909 So. 2d 1061, 1063 (Miss. 2004))
. 

### 4 ¶ 5
. D r. K h a ri A
. O m o lar a filed a m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t, w h ich w a s jo in e d b y a ll def endant s . O n M ar ch 19, 2009, t he tr i al cour tgr ant ed s um m ary j udgm enti n f avorof t he def endant s , f

i ndi ng, among ot hert hi ngs , t hatT hel m a’ s cl ai m s w er e barr ed by the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . Fr om t hator der , T hel m a appe al s and r ai s es s ever al i s s ues , i ncl udi ng her
a rg u m e n t th a t th e trial ju d g e e rre d in h o ld in g th a t th e s ta tu te o f lim itatio n s b a rs h e r su it. B eca us e w e f

i nd the s t atut e- of

- l i m i t at i ons i s s ue di s pos i t i ve, w e dec l i ne t o addr es s t he other i ssues. A N A L Y S IS ¶6. W e appl y a de novo s t andar d of r evi ew t o t he t r i al cour t ’ s gr ant or deni al of a mot i on fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t. A m o tio n fo r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t “ sh a ll” b e g ra n ted b y a c o u rt “ if 3 th e p lea d in g s, d e p o sitio n s, a n sw e rs to in ter ro g a to rie s a n d a d m iss io n s o n file, to g e th e r w ith t he af f i davi t s , i f

any, show t hatt her e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o any mat er i al f actand thatthe
m o v in g p a rt y is e n title d to a ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f l a w .” 4 ¶ 7
. W e a l s o r e v i e w s t a tu t e - o f
- l i mi t a t i o n s i s s u e s u n d e ra d e n o v o s t a n d a r d
. Th e l ma 5 admi t s t hata l l he rcl ai m s ar e governed by M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 15- 1- 35, w hi ch pr ovi des
a one- years t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons , and thatabs ents om e t ol l i ng pr ovi s i on, t he s t atut e ofBecause Thelma sti pu lated that a ll her cl aims were subject to a one -year st atute of 6 limitatio ns , th e q

ue sti on of wh eth er S ection

15-1 -35 of

theMis sis sippi C od e doe s in fa ct c ov er e ach of tho se c lai m s is no t be fo re this Co urt . The ref ore , to day w e do not addre ss whic h to rts aresu bje ct to t hepro vis ion s o f t

hat co desec tio n and

wh ich areno t. M. R. C. P. 41 (a) (1) (i)
. 7 Erby v. Cox , 6 54 So . 2 d 5 03 , 5 04 -05 (Mi ss. 19 95 ). 8 Ma rsh all, 7 So. 3d at 213 (Mi ss . 20 09 ) (emphasis added) (quoti ng Smith v. Copiah 9 Co un ty , 232 Miss. 838, 100 So. 2d 614, 616 (1958))
. 

### 5 l i m i t at i ons w oul d have expi r ed on O ct ober2, 2007 – one yearf r om t he dat e of

t he begi nni ng
o f T h e lm a ’s a lleg e d fa lse im p riso n m e n t. 6 ¶8. A l t hough T hel m a f i l ed her or i gi nal c om pl ai nt on O ct ober 1, 2007, s he di d nots erve D r . O m ol ar a ort he otherdef endant s . Ins t ead, on J anuary 29, 2008, s he vol unt ar i l y di s m i s s ed t he compl ai ntpur s uantt o R ul e 41 and, on J anuary 30, 2008, f i l ed a s econd c om pl ai ntbas ed 7

on i den t i cal fact s. ¶ 9
. O rd in a rily , the filing o f a co m p lain t t o lls the sta tu te o f lim itatio n s. B u t w e h a v e h e ld 8 t hat a vol unt ary di s m i s s al w i t houtpr ej udi ce doe s notdepr i ve t he def endantof any def ens e he may be ent i t l ed t o m ake t o t he new sui t , nor conf erany new r i ght or advant age on the compl ai nant( pl ai nt i f f ) , and henc e i twi l ln ot h av e the ef f ect of exc ept i ng f

r om the per i od pr es cr i bed by the s tat ut e of l i m i tat i ons , the t i m e dur i ng w hi ch thats ui tw as pendi ng. 9 ¶10. T hel m a ar gues hercl ai m i s t i m el y beca us e w hen s he f i l ed the or i gi nal compl ai nt , one day r emai ned bef

or e the s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons expi r ed. She says f i l i ng the compl ai ntt ol l ed the s tatu te for 12 0 da y s un ti l Jan u ary 29 , 20 0 8 , an d she fi led su itthe fo ll o w ing d ay , Jan u ary 30, 2008.Sm ith , 1 00 So . 2 d at 61 6; W. T. Ra lei gh Co. v . B ar ne s , 1 43 Mis s. 59 7, 10 9 So
. 8, 9 ( 19 26 ); 10 Nevitt v. Bacon, 32 Mis s. 21 2, 18 56 WL 4 01 1, *1 0 (M iss . Err. & App . 1 85 6). 

### 6 ¶11. B utT hel m a pr ovi des no ar gum entas t o w hy the rul e i n Ma rs h a ll s houl d notappl y. H ervol unt ary di s m i s s al of the f i r s tc om pl ai ntdepr i ved herof t he t ol l i ng nor m al l y pr ovi ded by f i l i ng a compl ai nt . So t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons r an l ong be f or e t he s econd s ui tw as f i l ed. ¶ 1 2
. T h e lm a n e x t a rg u e s th a t “ re tro a c tiv e ly ” a p p ly in g th is ru le w o u ld b e fu n d a m e n tally

u n fa ir. H o w e v e r, o u r d e c isio n is n o t b a se d o n n e w law , a n d h e r a rg u m e n t h a s n o m e rit. 10 CO NC L US I ON ¶1 3
. T h e fil ing o f a c o m p lain t d o es n o t t o ll the s tatu te of li m it ati o n s w h en the p lai n ti ff vol unt ar i l y di s m i s s es t he s ui t . T hel m a vol unt ar i l y di s m i s s ed herf i r s tcom plai nt , s o t he
s t at ute of l i m i t at i ons w as nott ol l ed, and i tr an appr oxi m at el y f ourm ont hs bef

or e s he f i l ed hers econd c om pl ai nt . T he j udgm entof the tr i al cour ti s af

f i r m ed. ¶14. AF F I RM ED . W AL LE R, C. J . , CA RL S ON AN D GRA VE S , P . J J . , RA NDOL P H, LAM AR, KI TC HENS , CHANDL ER AND P I ER CE , J J . , CONCUR.