I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 0 - CA- 0 0 3 6 1 - S CT W W , I NC . d / b / a W EIGHT W ATCHERSOF GR E A T ER M ISS ISS IP P I, B J M , IN C . d /b /a WEIGH T

WA T C H ER SO F S O U T H ER N A L A BA MA AN D F LOR I DA PAN H AN DLE
v. RAI NB OW CASI NO - VICKSBU

RG PARTN

ERSH I P, L. P. AND BALL Y TE CHNO LOGI ES , I NC.
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 01/ 25/ 2010 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. TOM I E T. GR EEN COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT F I RS T J UDI CI AL DI S TRI CT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN TS: W I LSON H. CA RRO LL RO BE RT S
. M I NK A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L E E S : Q U IN B Y H IL L M A N B R E L A N D , IV W I L L I AM L . S M I T H NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CI VI L - T OR T S - OT HE R T HAN P E RS ONAL I NJ UR Y & P RO P E RT Y DAMAGE D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 09/ 08/ 2011 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
B E F O R E D I C K I N SO N , P . J. , L A M A R A N D K I T C H E N S, JJ. KI TCHEN S , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. I n thi s appea l , w e ar e as ked t o det erm i ne w hether the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons barr ed an act i on agai ns ta cas i no fori t s al l eged i nvol vementi n an em bezz l ementsche m e. F i ndi ng t hat the pl ai nt i f

f f ai l ed t o pr ovi de any e vi dence of f r audul entconce al m entby the ca s i no, w e agr ee
w i th the tr i al courtthatthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons had run at t he t i m e the s ui tw as f i l ed.

### In th is op inio n, “W eight W atchers” jointly refers to b othp laintiffs, that is, WW , Inc., 1 

### doing bus ine ss as Wei ght Watc her s of Gre at er Mi ss is sippi, and BJM Inc. , doing busines s a s Wei ght Watc her s of

Southe rn Al abama

and Fl ori da Panhandl e. 2 Fur therm or e, beca us e the pl ai nt i f f di d notpr oper l y reques ta cont i nuance f orf ur ther dis cov ery, w e aff

i rm the tr i al co urt ’s g ranto f sum m ary j ud gm ent i n favor of the d efendan t s. F a cts ¶2. O n D ece m ber 5, 200 5, W ei gh tW at cher s di s cover ed thati t s bookkeepe r , D i anne 1 B e lk , h a d e m b e z z led n e a rly $ 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 fro m th e b u sin e ss o v e r a six -y e a r p e rio d . B e lk embe z z l e d the mone y by wr i t i ng c he c ks t o he r s e l f f r om W e i gh tW a t c he r s a c c ou nt s . She
conce al ed herw r i t i ng of una uthor i zed chec ks by i nput t i ng l egi t i m at e vendor s ’ na m es i n t he comput er i zed bookkeepi ng s ys t em as the os t ens i bl e payee s . H ow ever , B el k w oul d type her
nam e as p ayee on t he pape rchec ks
. B el k then w oul d cas h the che cks atl ocal banks and
cas i nos , i ncl udi ng the R ai nbow C as i no, and s he of t en w oul d gambl e w i t h t he embezzl ed
mo n e y . Be l k r e p o r t e d h e rwi n n i n g s t o th e I n t e rn a l Re v e n u e S e r v i c e v i a W
- 2 G f o r ms p ro v id e d b y th e c a sin o , an d sh e p a id tax e s o n th o se w in n in g s. A c c o rd in g to th e c o m p lain t, B el k l os tr oughl y $240, 000 of the s t ol en f

unds t o R ai nbow C as i no. ¶3. O n Janua ry 9, 2009, m or e t han t hr ee ye ar s af t erf i r s tl earni ng of

B el k’ s embezzl ement act i vi t i es , W ei ghtW at cher s f i l ed s ui ti n the H i nds C ounty C i r cui tC our t , Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s tr i ct , agai ns tD i anne Bel k, R obertF. B el k, J r . ( D i anne’ s hus band) , R ai nb ow C as i noV icks b u rg P artne rship , L . P . , B all y T ec h n o log ies I n c. (th e c asin o ’s m an ag em en t com p an y ),
a n d fiv e Jo h n D o e d e fe n d a n ts. W e ig h t W a tch e rs’ c laim s a g a in st R a in b o w C a sin o a n d B a lly

### 3

T echnol ogi es ( her ei naf

t ercol l ect i vel y re f

err ed t o as “Rai nbow ” or“the ca s i no”) w er e bas ed
o n frau d , u n

just en ri ch m en t, co n v e rsio n , an d n eg li g en ce . R ainb o w m o v ed for su m m ary j udgm ent , ar gui ng thatthe thr ee- years t atut e of l i m i t at i ons had begun t o run, atthe l at es t , on D ece m ber5 , 2 00 5, the day W ei ghtW at cher s f i r s tl earned thatB el k had bee n cas hi ng
u n au tho ri ze d ch ec k s at the c asin o . R ainb o w also arg u ed , i n th e alt ern ativ e , tha t su m m ary j udgm entw as appr opr i at e bec aus e the ca s i no w as a hol deri n due cour s e and thati tdi d not h a v e a le g a l d u ty to in v e s tig a te th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s s u rr o u n d in g is s u a n c e o f t h e c h e c k s . ¶ 4
. W e ig h t W a tch e rs c o u n ter e d th a t R a in b o w fra u d u len tly c o n c e a led its p a rticip a tio n in B e lk ’s ille g a l en terp rise b y p ro v id in g h e r th e W -2 G fo rm s, a n d th a t W e ig h t W a tch e rs c o u ld nothave know n of R ai nbow ’ s w r ongf ul conductunt i l i t s r ece i ptof B el k’ s f eder al t ax r etur ns on J anuary 16, 2006, w i thi n t hr ee yea r s of i t s havi ng f

i l ed s ui t . W ei ghtW at cher s al s o ar gued thatR ai nbow w as nota hol deri n du e co urse beca us e i thad notact ed i n good f ai th w hen
cas hi ng the che cks
. I n t he al t ernat i ve, W ei ghtW at cher s ar gued thats um m ary j udgm entw as pr ematur e beca us e di s covery w as i ncompl et e; buti tdi d notf i l e an a f f i davi tas r equi r ed by M is s is s ip p i R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 5 6 (f ). ¶5. T he tr i al courtgr ant ed R ai nb ow ’s m oti on , rej ect i ng W ei ghtW at cher s ’ f r audul ent
conce al m entar gum entand f i ndi ng thatthe ac t i on w as barr ed by the thr ee- year st at ute of l i m i t at i ons underM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 7 5- 3- 118( g) ( R ev. 2002)
. T he or derdi d not add res s the p l ai nti ff’s argum ent that s um m ary j ud gm ent w as prem ature o r the defend ants ’T h e o rd e r w a s c e rtified fin a l as to R a in b o w an d B a lly p u rsu a n t t o M iss iss ip p i R u le 2 o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 5 4 (b ). T h u s, th e y a re th e o n ly d e fe n d a n ts o n a p p e a l. 

### In a sep arate issue, W eight W atchers makes a “d iscov ery rule” argument; b ut it is, 3 

### in fact, th e same as its argument fo r fraudulent con cealment. 4 ar gum entthatt he cas i no w as a hol deri n due cour s e. O n appea l , W ei ghtW at cher s ar gues 2 thatthe tr i al courterr ed i n gr ant i ng s um m ar y j ud gm ent , beca us e R ai nbow ’ s f r audul ent
conce al menta nd t he c on t i nu i ng t ortdo c tr i ne t ol l e d the s t a tut e of l i mi t a t i on s . I n the

3 alt ern ati v e, W eigh t W atch ers a sk s this C o u rtto rev erse a n d rem an d , find ing that su m m ary ju d g m e n t w a s p re m a tu re . D i s cus s i on ¶6
. “W h en rev iew in g a tria l c o u rt’ s g ran t or d en ial o f sum m ary jud g m en t, this C o u rt appl i es a de novo s t andar d of r evi ew . ” A nders on v. A l ps A utom oti ve, I

nc. , 51 So. 3d 929, 93 1 (M i ss. 20 10 ). A m oti on forsum m ary j ud gm ent i s t o b e grant ed “if the p leadi ng s, dep osi t i on s, answ ers t o i nterrogat ori es and adm i ssi on s on f i l e, t og et her w i th the aff i dav i t s, if a n y , sh o w th a t th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e a s to a n y m a ter ial fa c t a n d th a t th e m o v in g p a rty i s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entas a m att erof l aw . ” M i s s . R . C i v. P. 56( c)
. T he party m ovi ng f or
sum m ary j ud gm ent bears the bu rden o f show i ng thatn o gen uine i ssue of m at eri al factexis t s. Be n n e tt v. Hil l -Bo r e n , P. C. , 52 So. 3d 364, 368 ( M i s s . 2011)
. Ther eaf t er , “[ t ] he non- m ovi ng p a rt y m u s t p ro d u c e s p e c if ic fa c ts s h o w in g th a t th e re is a g e n u in e m a te ri a l i s s u e f o r t ri a l.” V an v. G r and Cas inos of Mis s . , I nc. , 7 6 7 S o . 2 d 1 0 1 4 , 1 0 1 8 (M is s . 2 0 0 0 ). I
. W ei ghtW at cher s di d notal l ege any conduct on the par tof

R ai nbow that w ou ld h ave tol l ed the statut e of l i m i tati on s.

### 5

¶7. M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 15-1- 67 (Rev. 2003) s et s f or th the rul e r egar di ng f r audul ent
c o n c e a lm e n t: If a person li able t o an y p ers on al act i on shal l fr aud ulent l y co nceal the cau se of act i on f r om t he know l edge of

t he per s on ent i t l ed t her et o, t he caus e of act i on s hal l be dee m ed t o have f i r s tacc rued at , and notbef or e, t he t i m e atw hi ch s uch f r aud s hal l be, orw i th r eas onabl e di l i gence m i ghthave be en, f i r s tknow n or di s cover ed. W e ig h t W a tch e rs a rg u e s, a s it d id b e lo w , tha t R a in b o w fra u d u len tly c o n c e a le d its i nvol vementby i s s ui ng t ax f or m s t o B el k thatf

al s el y r epr es ent ed B el k had w on the money f r om the cas i no. T hus , W ei ghtW at cher s ar gues thati tcoul d nothave know n a ca us e of act i on agai ns tR ai nbow exi s t ed unt i l i tr ece i ved B el k’ s f eder al t ax r eturns on J anuary 13, 2 0 0 6
. ¶8. H ow ever , as s um i ng ar guendo that the cas i no comm i t t ed s om e w r ong by i s s ui ng t he t ax f or m s , thi s di d nots erve t o c oncea l a ny c aus e of a ct i on f r om the pl ai nt i f

f
. I ti s undi s put ed thatW ei ghtW at chers knew on D ece m ber5, 2005, thatB el k had ca s hed many of t he
u n a u th o riz e d c h e c k s a t th e R a in b o w C a sin o . W h ile th e tax fo rm s m a y h a v e h e lp e d B e lk
conce al heri l l egal act i vi ty f r om the I nternal Revenue Servi ce, W ei ghtW at cher s does not expl ai n how the t ax f or m s w oul d have pr event ed i t s di scove r i ng R ai nbow ’ s al l eged i nvol vementi n B el k’ s cr i m es . T her ef or e, w e agr ee w i th the tr i al cour tt hatt he pl ai nt i f f has notal l eged a ny f

r audul entconductthatw oul d have c oncea l ed a c aus e of act i on. II
. T he co nti nu i ngt ortdo ctri ne d oes no taid the p laint i f f , beca use the last t or t i ous act i on occur r ed m or e than thr ee year s bef or e the com

plai ntw as f

i l ed.

### 6

¶9. “[ W ] her e a t or t i nvol ves a cont i nui ng or r epea t ed i nj ury, the caus e of act i on acc rues
a t, an d lim itatio n s b e g in to ru n fro m , th e d a te o f th e las t in ju ry , o r w h e n th e to rtio u s a c ts
cea s e. ” Sm ith v. Fr anklin C ustodian F unds, I nc. , 726 So. 2d 144, 148 ( M i s s . 1999) ( quot i ng Steve ns v. L ake , 615 So. 2d 1177, 1183 (M i ss. 1 993))
. A ccor di ng t o W ei ght W at cher s , the l as tt or t i ous conductoccurr ed l at e i n 2006 w hen B el k f i l ed herf

ederal t ax
r eturn for2005. W e di s agr ee and f i nd thatthe l as ti nj ury t o W ei ghtW at cher s occurr ed on D ece m ber5, 2005, the dat e B el k cas hed herf i nal unauthor i zed c heck. A s w i th i t s f r audul ent
co n ce a lm e n t argu m en t, the p lai n ti ff can n o t dem o n str ate tha t i t w as a ffected b y B elk’s deal i ngs w i th the I nt ernal R evenue Ser vi ce. T hu s, t he cont i nui ng t or tdoctr i ne w oul d not oper at e t o t ol l the appl i cabl e s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons beyond D ece m ber5, 2008. I I I
. W ei ghtW at cher s di d notpr operl

y re ques ta cont i nuance f orf ur ther dis cove r y. ¶1 0
. F inally, W eigh t W atch ers a rgu es th a t it w a s e n tit led to c o n d u ct furthe r d isco v ery b efo re the su m m ary jud g m en t m o ti o n w as c o n side red
. M issi ssipp i R u le o f C ivil P roc ed u re 5 6 (f) p ro v id e s th a t a p a rty o p p o s in g su m m a ry ju d g m e n t m a y b e a llo w e d a c o n tin u a n c e if addi t i onal di s covery i s nece s s ary f ora r es pons e. H ow ever , W ei ghtW at cher s neverf i l ed a R ul e 56( f

) af f i davi tw i th t he tr i al court , and thus, w e f i nd thatthi s i s s ue w as notpr es erved fo r a p p e a l. C oncl usi on ¶11. W ei ght W at cher s f ai l ed t o al l ege any af

f i r m at i ve act i on on behal f of R ai nb ow t hat
w oul d have c oncea l ed a c aus e of a ct i on. W e f

i nd thatthe s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons began t o run,

### 7

atthe l at es t , the day thatB el k cas hed the l as tunautho ri zed check
. B eca us e the cl ai m w as filed m o re th a n th re e y e a rs la ter , w e a ffirm th e trial c o u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ry ju d g m e n t in favor of the d efendan t s. ¶ 1 2
. AF F I RM ED . W AL LE R, C. J . , CARL S ON AN D D I CKI NS ON, P . J J . , RANDOL P H, LA M AR, CHANDL ER , P I ER CE AND KI NG, J J . , CONCUR.