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 6 - CT - 0 0 5 1 9 - S CT M ERLEA N M

ARSH ALL, ALPH ON

ZO M ARSH ALL AN D ERIC S

HEP AR D, I NDI VI DUA L L Y A ND ON BEH ALF O F ALL W

RO NG FU

L DE ATH BENE FICI

AR I ESOF L UC Y S HEP AR D, DECEAS

ED
v. KANS ASCI TY S OUTHERN RAI LW AYSCOM

PANY, ERIC W . ROBI NSON, THE ES TAT

E OF ROBERT EVERETT AN

D C . L. DU ETT ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 01/ 10/ 2006 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. M AR CU S D. GOR DON COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: S COTT COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT S : J AM E S W . CR AI G HER BERT LEE A TTO RN EY S FO R A PPELL EES: CH A RL ES E. RO SS C H A R L E S H . R U S S E L L , III BEN J AM I N N OA H PH I LLEY NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - W RO NG FUL D EATH D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 03/ 05/ 2009 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
EN BA NC. LAM AR, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T hi s cas e i s bef or e t he C ou rto n w ri to f cer t i orar i
. M er l ean M ar s hal l , A l phonzo M ar s hal l , and Eri c Shepar d, i ndi vi dual l y a nd on behal f of al l w r ongf

ul
- death benef

i ci ar i es
o f L u cy S h ep ard (co ll ec ti v ely “ B e n e fic iaries” ), p eti ti o n ed this C o u rtfor w ri t of ce rt iorari
a fte r the C o u rto f A p p ea ls affi rm ed the S co ttC o u n ty C ir cu itC o u rt ’s dism issal of th e irE r i c R obi ns on, C
. L . D uett , and R obertE ver ettw er e m ember s of the tr ai n cr ew and 1 nam ed d efendan t s. E veret tw as the co nd uctor , and R ob i nson and D uettw ere engineer s. R obi ns on, E ver ett , and D uettw er e r es i dent s of M i s s i s s i ppi att he t i m e t he compl ai nt 2 w as f i l ed. I n i t s or derdenyi ng the mot i on t o r emand, the di s tr i ctcourtdi d notspec i f y w hether 3 the tr ai n cr ew w as di s m i s s ed w i th orw i thoutpr ej udi ce. Fur therm ore, the r ecor d does not 2 w r ongf ul
- death act i on a s t i me- ba rr e d. W e c on s i de rw he the rthe Bene f i c i a r i e s ’ c l a i m s s ur vi ve pur s uantt o the s avi ngs pr ovi si on of Sect i on 15- 1- 69 of

the M i s s i s s i ppi C ode. Fi ndi ng t he ci r cui tcourtand the C our tof A ppeal s e rr ed, w e r ever s e and r emand so thatthe B enef i ci ar i es
m ay p roc ee d in the tr ial co u rtw ith their ac ti o n ag ains t the d efe n d an ts, K an sas C ity S o u thern Ra i l wa y Co mp a n y ( “ KC S ” ) a n d th e tr a i n c r e w. 1

F AC T S AN D T RI AL CO UR T P RO CE E DI NG S ¶2
. O n Ju ly 1 0 , 1 9 9 8 , a v an d ri v en b y L u cy S h ep ard co ll ided w ith a K C S tr ain. S h ep ard d i e d a s a r e s u l to f

th e a c c i d e n t , wh i l e P h y l l i s M c Ke e , a p a s s e n g e ri n t h e v a n , s u r v i v e d
. On Ju ly 2 0 , 1 9 9 8 , ten d a y s a fte r th e a c c id e n t, S h e p a rd ’s B e n e fic iar ies filed a w ro n g fu l-d e a th
ac ti o n (“ Shepard I

”) agai ns tK C S and the tr ai n cr ew i n the C i r cui tC our tof Scot tC ount y. 2 M cK ee f i l ed a s epar at e negl i gence act i on agai ns tK C S and the tr ai n cr ew i n a M i s s i s s i ppi
s ta te c o u rt . See McK

ee v. K an. Cit y S. R y. , 2 8 1 F . 3 d 1 2 7 9 (5th C ir
. 2 0 0 1 ). ¶3. O n J une 22, 1999, K C S r emoved S h epa rd I t o the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tf or the Sout hern D i s tr i ctof

M i s s i s s i ppi , clai m i ng t he tr ai n cr ew w as f r audul ent l y j oi ned t o def eat di ver s i ty j ur i s di ct i on. T he B enef i ci ar i es r es ponded w i th a mot i on t o r emand, w hi ch w as deni ed. T he di s tr i ctcourtf ou nd thatthe tr ai n cr ew w as f r audul ent l y j oi ned t o def eat di ve r s i ty j ur i s di c t i on , a nd i td i s mi s s e d the tr a i n c r e w f r om the a c t i on o n M a r c h 30, 2000. 3c o n ta in a R u le 5 4 (b ) c e rt if ic a tio n a s to t h e d is m is s a l o f t h e tr a in c re w . See Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 54( b)
. U nderRul e 54( b) , “ any or derorotherdeci s i on, how everdes i gnat ed, thatadj udi cat es f ew erthan al l the cl ai m s orthe r i ght s and l i abi l i t i es of fe w ert han al l the part i es does notend the a cti o n as to an y of th e claim s o r pa rt ies an d m ay b e re v ised at an y ti m e b efo re the en try of j udgm entadj udi cat i ng al l the cl ai m s and al l the part i es ’ r i ght s and l i abi l i t i es . ” I d. 3 T he B enef

i ci ar i es then f

i l ed an i nt er l ocut ory appea l t o cont es tthe or derdenyi ng thei rm ot i on t o r emand. T he Fi f

th C i r cui tC our tof

A ppeal s di s m i s s ed the i nt er l ocut ory appea l as p r e ma tu r e , s i n c e th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f th e mo t i o n wa s n o tc e r t i f i e d u n d e r2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 2 9 2 (b) o r F ed era l R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 5 4 (b). ¶4. M eanw hi l e, the M cK ee cas e al s o w as r emoved t o f ederal cou rt and as s i gned t o t he
s ame di s tr i ctcour tj udge. A s w i th Shepard I, the di s tr i ctc our tdi s m i s s ed the tr ai n cr ew as f r audul ent l y j oi ned. T her eaf t er , the M cK ee c as e w entt o tr i al , a nd a j ury r eturned a ve r di ct i n f a vo rof K CS. ¶5. U pon l earni ng of the M cK ee ver di ct , the B enef i ci ar i es f i l ed a mot i on f

orentry of f

i nal ju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f K C S u n d e r R u le 5 4 o f th e F e d e ra l R u les o f C iv il P ro c e d u re . In th e ir
m o tio n fo r e n try o f fin a l ju d g m e n t, th e B e n e fic iar ies sta ted , in r e lev a n t p a rt: T he i s s ues i n the ca s e s ub j udi ce ar e i dent i cal t o the i s s ues i n McK ee and tho se issue s h av e b ee n d ec ided b y a jury in fav o r of the K an sas C ity S o u thern R ai l w ay C om pany. Si nce the C our ta nd the D ef endanthave pr evi ous l y opi ned thatthe j ury’ s ver di cti n McK ee and the f

i nal j udgm entent er ed pur s uantt o that verdi ctare bindi ng upo n the P l ai nti ff and t he D efendan therei n, there i s no just r eas on t o del ay the entr y of a f i nal j udgm enti n thi s act i on.R ul e 41( a) ( 2) pr ovi des “an a ct i on m ay be di s m i s s ed atthe pl ai nt i f f’ s r eques tonl y by 4 c o u rt o rd e r, o n te rm s t h a t th e c o u rt d e e m s p ro p e r . . . . U n le s s th e o rd e r s ta te s o th e rw is e , a dis m i ssal un der this paragraph (2) i s w i thoutpr ej udi ce . F e d . R . C iv . P . 4 1 (a )(2 ) (e m p h a sis ad d ed ). T he McK

ee v e rd ict w a s a p p e a led to th e F ifth C irc u it C o u rt o f A p p e a ls, an d the F ifth 5 C ir c u it v a c a te d th e v e rd ic t a n d re m a n d e d th e c a s e to s ta te c o u rt . See McKee v. Kan. Ci t y S. Ry. C o. , 3 5 8 F . 3 d 3 2 9 , 3 3 7 (5th C ir
. 2 0 0 4 ). T h e F if th C ir cu itfou n d that the d istri ct co u rt lac k e d su b

jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n o v e r th e a c tio n , sin c e th e tra in c re w w a s n o t fra u d u len tly jo in e d to d e fe a t d iv e rs ity ju ri s d ic tio n . I d . at331, 337. 4 ¶6. K C S di d not oppos e entr y of f i nal j udgm ent but ar gued the m ot i on s houl d be gr ant ed underR ul e 41( a) ( 2) of the Feder al R ul es of C i vi l P r ocedur e. I n i t s r es pons e t o the mot i on 4 f orentry of

f i nal j udgm ent , K C S st at ed: I ti s appar entf

r om Pl ai nt i f

f s ’ M ot i on, and f

r om r epr es ent at i ons by hercouns el t o thi s D ef

endantand the C our t , thatPl ai nt i f f w i s hes t o t erm i nat e pr ocee di ngs b efo re this C o u rtan d ap p ea l t o the F if th C ir cu itC o u rto f A p p ea ls th is C o u rt ’s rul i ngs denyi ng the Pl ai nt i f f s ’ M ot i on t o R emand an d M ot i on t o R econs i der O r derD enyi ng R emand. D ef endantw oul d a gr ee t o entry of or derdi s m i s s i ng Pl ai nt i f f s ’ cl ai m s w i th pr ej udi ce a nd expr es s l y r es ervi ng t he P l ai nt i f f s ’ r i ght t o ch al l eng e t his C ou rt ’s s ubj ect m at t erj ur is di ct i on o n a p p e a l to th e F ifth C irc u it. (E m p h asis ad d ed ). ¶7. O n Sept ember30, 2003, the di s tr i ctcourtent er ed an or derof di s m i s s al and entr y of f i nal j udgm entr ef

err i ng t o R ul e 41( a) ( 2) of the Feder al R ul es of C i vil Pr ocedur e. I n the
or der , the di s tr i ctcourtn oted t hat“the par al l el cas e denomi nat ed P hyl lis B ody McK

ee v. K ansas Cit y Souther n R ailw ay , Ci v i l Ac t i o n No . 3 : 9 9
- c v - 3 9 3 W S , wh i c h i n v o l v e s th e s a me def endant s as the i ns t antcas e, t he s ame f act s and the s ame ques t i ons of l aw , w as det erm i ned i n f avorof the def endant s by j ury ver di ct . ” T he courtdi d nots peci f y w hetherthe j udgm ent 5
w as w i th orw i thoutpr ej udi ce.E ver etthad pas s ed aw ay, s o hi s es t at e w as named as a part y defend anti n S h epa rd 6 II. 5 ¶8. U pon Shepard I ’s d ism iss a l, th e B e n e fic iar ies a g a in a p p e a led the o rd e r d e n y in g th e ir
m ot i on t o r emand. T he Fi f th C i r cui tconcl uded the di s m i s s al w as w i thoutpr ej udi ce pur s uant to R u le 4 1 (a )( 2 ), a n d t h u s , itla c k e d ju ri s d ic tio n to h e a r t h e a p p e a l. See Mars hal l v. Kan. Cit y S. R y. Co. , 3 7 8 F . 3 d 4 9 5 (5th C ir
. 2 0 0 4 ). ¶ 9
. A fte r th e F ifth C irc u it d ism iss e d th e a p p e a l in S h e p a rd I, th e B e n e fic iar ies re filed th e ir
w ron g ful-de ath a cti o n in the C ir cu itC o u rto f S co ttC o u n ty (“ S h epa rd II ”) on A ugus t16, 2004. T he B enef

i ci ar i es agai n named K C S an d t he tr ai n cr ew as def endant s and as s er t ed 6 vi r tual l y the s ame cl ai m s as i n Shepard I
. S h epa rd II also w as re m o v ed to fed era l cou rt b ase d o n d iversity juri sd ict ion an d frau d u lent joind er. ¶1 0. T her eaf

t er , t he B e ne f

i c i a r i e s f i l e d a mot i on t o r e mand , whi ch w as gr ant ed by a d if fe re n t d is tr ic t ju d g e . See Mars hall v. K an. Cit y S. R y. Co. , 3 7 2 F . Su p p . 2 d 9 1 6 ( S
. D. M i s s . 2005)
. I n i t s opi ni on and orde r , t he di s tr i ctcour tre l i ed upon t he Fi f th C i r cui t ’ s hol di ng i n McK ee v. Kans as Cit

y So ut he r n Railway Com

pa ny , 

### 358 F.3d 329, 337 (5th Cir . 2004)
. I d . at921. T he courts peci f i cal l y f ound: [T ]h e F if th C ir c u it h a s a lr e a d y c o n s id e re d a n d r e je c te d s im ila r a rg u m e n ts . .

. i n the M cK ee s ui t. . . B as ed on t he hol di ngs of the Fi f th C i r cui ti n the M c K e e su it, a n d b a se d o n th is C o u rt’s o w n re v iew o f th e fa c ts a n d c laim s in thi s cas e, t he C our tfi nds t hatP l ai nt i f f s have as s ert ed cl ai m s agai ns tthe nond iv e rse D e fe n d a n ts fo r w h ich a M iss iss ip p i sta te c o u rt m ay g ran t r eli ef. I d.I ti s undi s put ed thatSect i on 15- 1- 49 appl i es t o the cl ai m s asser t ed by t he 7 B enefi ci ari es. 6 ¶11
. U p o n the re m an d o f S h ep a rd II t o s t a t e c ou r t , KC S a nd the t r ai n cr ew s ought di s m i s s al bas ed on the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . K C S and the tr ai n cr ew argue d t hatt he B enef i ci ar i es ’ cl ai m s w er e t i m e- barr ed underthe thr ee- years t atut e of l i m i t at i ons of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 15- 1- 49 ( R ev. 20 03) and thatthe vol unt ary di s m i s s al w i thout 7 pr ej udi ce w as nota di s m i s s al as a “mat t erof f or m ” underM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 15- 1- 69 (R ev . 2 0 0 3 ). ¶ 1 2
. Th e tr i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a n o r d e r o f d i s mi s s a l wi th p r e j u d i c e , f i n d i n g t h a t a l l c l a i ms
w e re tim e -b a rre d u n d e r S e c tio n 1 5 -1 -4 9 o f th e M iss iss ip p i C o d e . T h e B e n e fic iar ies tim e ly appea l ed. PROCEEDI NG S AT THE CO URT O F AP PEALS ¶ 1 3
. T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f o u n d th e s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s h a d ru n , a n d a b s e n t “ s a v in g ,” th e B e n e fi c ia ri e s ’ c la im s w e re tim e -b a rr e d , a ff ir m in g th e tr ia l c o u rt ju d g m e n t. Mars hall v. K an. Cit y S. R y. Co. , 2007 M i s s . A pp. L E X I S 752, at* 6 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. N ov. 6, 2007)
. T he C o u rt o f A p p e a ls h e ld th a t th e B e n e fic iar ies co u ld n o t be n e fit fro m S e c tio n 1 5 -1 -6 9 , as th e ir d is m is s a l w a s n o t w ith in th e p u rv ie w o f t h e S a v in g s S ta tu te . I d . at*9- *10, *14. DI S CU S S I ON ¶14. T hi s C our tr evi ew s a s t atut e- of
- l i m i t at i on s i s s ue undera de novo s t andar d. Cham pluvierv. B eck , 9 0 9 S o . 2 d 1 0 6 1 , 1 0 6 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). ¶15. T he ques t i on thi s C our t m us t det er m i ne i s w het her the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons f ort he B enef i ci ar i es ’ cl ai m s has run. T he st atut e of l i m i t at i ons foral l cl ai m s began t o run J ul y 10,7

1 9 9 8 , w h e n S h e p a rd w a s fa tally inju re d in th e train co lli sio n . T h e B e n e fic iar ies fil e d th e ir
c o m p lain t o n Ju ly 2 0 , 1 9 9 8 , w e ll w ith in th e th re e -y e a r sta tu te o f lim itatio n s. T h e ir
co m p lai n t, h o w ev er, w as d ism issed on S ep tem b er 3 0 , 2 0 0 3 , an d fi n al j u d g m en t entere d m o re th a n five ye ars after th e ca u se o f acti o n acc rue d
. T h is C o u rtprev iou sly ha s he ld th a t a vol unt ary di s m i s s al w i thoutpr ej udi ce: [D ]oe s n o t d e p riv e th e d e fe n d a n t o f an y d e fe n se h e m a y b e en tit led to m a k e to the new s ui t , norc onf era ny ne w r i ghtora dvant age on the com plai nant ( pl ai nt i f f ) , and henc e i twi l lnot

hav e the ef

f ect of exce pt i ng f r om the peri od pr es cr i bedby 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 . Sm ith v. Co

p ia h Co u n ty , 100 So. 2d 614, 616 ( M i s s . 19 58) ( quot i ng W . T . R alei gh C o. v. B ar nes , 1 43 M i s s . 5 97 , 1 09 So
. 8 , 9 ( 19 26 ) ( quot i ng N evitt v. B acon , 32 M i s s . 212, 228 ( 1856) ( emphasi s added) ) )
. B as ed on thi s C our t ’ s hol di ng i n Sm ith , the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons f orthe B enef

i ci ar i es ’ cl ai m s has run unl es s s aved pur s uantt o Sect i on 15- 1- 69 of t he M i s s i s s i ppi C ode. ¶ 1 6
. S e c tio n 1 5 -1 -6 9 o f th e M iss iss ip p i C o d e p ro v id e s in re lev a n t p a rt:

If a n y a c tio n , d u ly co m m e n c e d w ith in th e tim e a llo w e d , the w rit sh a ll be aba t ed, orthe ac t i on otherw i s e avoi ded ordef eat ed, by the dea t h of any p arty the reto, or f

o ra ny ma t t e ro

f f o r m . . . the pl ai nt i f

f m ay com m ence a new act i on f orthe s ame caus e, a ta ny t i m e w i thi n one yea raf t erthe aba t ementor o th e r d e ter m in a tio n o f th e o rig in a l su it. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 15- 1- 69 ( R ev. 2003) ( emphasi s a dded)
. T hi s Courtpr evi ous l y has rul ed th a tS e c t i o n 1 5
- 1
- 6 9 a p p l i e s t o th o s e c a s e s “ [ w] h e r e th e p l a i n t i f f h a s b e e n d e f

e a t e d b y s o me
m att ernotaf

f ect i ng the mer i t s , s om e def ector i nf or m al i ty, w hi ch [ the pl ai nt i f f ] can r emedy
oravoi d by a n ew proc es s , the s t atut e s hal l notpr eventhi m f r om doi ng s o, pr ovi ded he8

f ol l ow s i tpr om pt l y, by s ui tw i thi n a yea r . ” H aw kins v. Scottis h U

ni on & N

at ’l I ns. Co. , 110 M i s s . 23, 69 So. 710, 713 ( 1915)
. Fur therm or e, the s t atut e i s “‘ hi ghl y r emedi al ’ ” and “ ‘ ought t o be l i ber al l y cons trued. ’ ” I d. at712 ( quot i ng T

om pkins v. P aci

f i c I ns. Co. , 44 S. E . 439, 4 4 1 (W
. V a . 1 9 0 3 )). “ [G ]oo d faith in th e ins titu tio n o f th e ac tio n d ism iss e d is a n e lem e n t in det erm i ni ng the r i ghtt o i nvoke the s t atut e. ” I d. ¶ 1 7 . T h e p a rties d o n o t d isp u te th a t S h epa rd I w as dul y comm ence d w i thi n the thr ee- year sta tu te o f lim itatio n s. F u rth e rm o re , th e p a rties d o n o t d isp u te th a t S h epa rd II (f i l ed A ug ust 16 , 2 00 4) const i tut ed a ne w act i on f orthe s ame caus e and w as f i l ed w i thi n one yea rof Shepard I ’ s di s m i ssal (di s m i s s ed Sept ember30, 2003)
. A ti s s ue i s w hetherthe di s m i s s al ent er ed by the dis tr i ctcourti s a “mat t erof f or m . ” See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 15- 1- 69 ( R ev. 2 0 0 3 ). ¶ 1 8
. T h e B e n e fic iar ies c o n c e d e th a t a v o lu n tar y d ism iss a l w ith o u t p re ju d ice is g e n e ra lly notcons i der ed a “mat t erof f or m ” w i thi n the pur vi ew of Sec t i on 15- 1- 69 of

the M i s s i s s i ppi C o d e . See B ar nes , 1 0 9 S o . at 9. T h e B en eficiari es a rgu e, ho w ev er, th at th e v o lun tary di s m i s s al w i thoutpr ej udi ce w as bas ed on the d i s tr i ctcourt ’ s l ack of s ubj ectm att er j uri sdi ct i on . T he B en efici ari es ess enti al l y reque stthat this C ou rtcon si der the record as a
w h o le a n d fi n d th e d is m is s a l w a s b a s e d o n a la c k o f s u b je c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n . See R yan
v. W ar dlaw , 3 82 So. 2d 1078, 1080- 81 ( M i s s . 1980) ( hol di ng thata di s m i s s al f orl ack of
su b jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n is a m a tter o f fo rm u n d e r S e c tio n 1 5 -1 -6 9 ); Fre dric kSm ith E nter. C o. v. L ucas , 3 6 S o . 2 d 8 1 2 , 8 1 4 (M iss. 1 9 4 8 ) (sam e); H aw kins v. Scottis h U

ni on & N a t ’l I n s . Co
. , 6 9 S o . at 71 2 (sam e).T h is C o u rt n o tes th a t t h e B e n e fic iar ies d id n o t re q u e st a v o lu n tar y d ism iss a l b u t a 8 f i nal j udgm entunderR ul e 54. 9 ¶1 9
. K C S an d the train c rew arg u e tha t th is C o u rtsh o u ld fo ll o w the g en era l ru le of B ar nes and f i nd a vol unt ary di s m i s s al w i thoutpr ej udi ce i s nota “mat t erof f or m . ” See B ar nes , 109 So. at9. K C S and the tr ai n cr ew cont end thatSect i on 15- 1- 69 s houl d not appl y t o cas es
w her e the pl ai nt i f

f volunt ar i l y di s m i s s es a ca s e bec aus e of di s s at i s f act i on w i th the di s tr i ct
c o u rt’s r u lin g s. A c c o rd in g to K C S a n d th e tra in c re w , the B e n e fi c ia rie s re c e iv e d e x a c tly
w h a t th e y req u e ste d , a v o lu n tar y d ism iss a l, an d th e B e n e fic iar ies sh o u ld b e b o u n d b y th e ir
s tr at egi c dec i s i on. 8 ¶2 0
. In B ar nes , th e tr ia l c o u r t d is m is s e d a c a u s e o f a c tio n w ith o u t p re ju d ic e . I

d. T he p la in tif f a n d d e fe n d a n t a g re e d th a t th e d is m is s a l w a s a n o n s u it. I d. T h ere after, the p lai n ti ff
re fi le d s u it w ith in o n e y e a r o f th e d is m is s a l o f t h e fi rs t c a u s e o f a c tio n . I d . T h e tr ial co u rt d is m is s e d th e s e c o n d a c tio n , ru lin g th a t S e c tio n 1 5 -1 -6 9 w a s in a p p lic a b le to a n o n s u it. I d. ¶21
. In determ i ning w hether a vo l un t ary dis m i ssal w i tho ut prej ud i ce w as a dis m i ssal as a “mat t erof

f or m , ” the C our tnot ed the f ol l ow i ng: T he mot i on on w hi ch the f i r s ts ui tw as di s m i s s ed does notappea ri n the re cor d, a nd ther e i s nothi ng i n the or derof di s m i s s al i ndi cat i ng thati tw as a m er e aba t ementof

the ac t i on, orthatthe di s m i s s al w as “f orany mat t erof fo rm ,” b u t in a n a g re e m e n t o f c o u n se l th e d ism iss a l is re fe rre d to a s a n o n su it. T h e s ta tu te in v o k e d , th e re fo re , c a n a ff o rd th e a p p e ll a n t n o re lie f . . . . A nons ui tora di s m i s s al w i thoutpr ej udi ce . . . m us tbe f ora mat t erof

f or m , and, as her ei nbef

or e s t at ed, i tdoes notappea r t hat the appe l l ant ’ s pr i ors ui tw as di s m i s s ed f

orthatr eas on. I d.10

¶22. R ece nt l y, thi s C our tcl ar i f i ed the hol di ng i n B ar nes w hen i t found that a v o lun tary di s m i s s al w i thoutpre

j udi ce coul d be consi der ed a di s m i s s al as a “mat t erof f or m . ” Craw

ford
v. Mor r is T

r ansp. , I nc. , 990 So. 2d 162, 174 ( M i s s . 2008). In Craw ford , a pl ai nt i f

f f i l ed a p e titio n to p e rp e tu a te te s tim o n y in a M is s is s ip p i c ir c u it c o u rt . I d . at 16 5 . T h e c ir cu itco u rt al l ow ed the pl ai nt i f

f t o depos e var i ous r es i dentand nonr es i dentdef endant s , and f

ol l ow i ng th e d e p o s itio n s , th e d e fe n d a n ts re m o v e d th e p e titio n to fe d e ra l c o u rt . I d . T he nonr es i dent def endant s cl ai m ed the pl ai nt i f f had f r aud ulent l y j oi ned the r es i dentdef endant s t o def

eat d iv e r s ity ju ri s d ic tio n . I d. T h ere after, the fe d era l cou rtd ism issed the re side n t defe n d an ts fr o m th e a c tio n . I

d. ¶ 2 3
. T h e p lain tiff th e n filed a m o tio n to d ism iss w ith o u t p re ju d ice , o r in th e a ltern a tiv e , to
re m a n d , c la im in g th e d e fe n d a n ts h a d im p ro p e rl y re m o v e d th e a c tio n . I d . T h e fe d era l cou rt f ound the def

endant s had pr ematur el y r emoved the act i on a nd gr ant ed the pl ai nt i f f’ s m ot i on to d is m is s w ith o u t p re

ju d ic e . I d . at166. ¶ 2 4
. A fte r th e fe d e ra l c o u rt d ism iss e d th e p e tit io n , th e p lain tiff f iled a c o m p lain t in sta te
c o u rt . I d . 167- 68. T he co m plai ntw as f i l ed out s i de the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons and el even
m o n th s a ft e r t h e d is m is s a l o f t h e p e titio n . I d . T he def

endantmoved t o di s m i s s the ac t i on as t i m e- barr ed, arguing Sec t i on 15- 1- 69 di d notappl y t o a vol unt ary di s m i s s al w i thout p re ju d ic e . I d . a t 1 6 8 . T h e tr ia l c o u rt d is m is s e d th e a c tio n w ith p re ju d ic e . I d. ¶25. O n appea l , thi s C our ts t art ed i t s anal ys i s of Sect i on 15- 1- 69 w i th the pr emi s e that vol unt ary di s m i s s al s ar e notdi s m i s s al s as a m att erof f or m , butthatdi s m i s s al s f orl ack of
s u bje c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n a re c o n s id e re d d is m is s a ls a s a m a tte r o f f o rm . I d . a t170. T he11

C ou rtproceed ed t o revi ew the “con t ent or s ub st ance” of the record t o d et erm i ne the pu rpose
o r r e a s o n fo r t h e p la in tif f’ s v o lu n ta ry d is m is s a l w ith o u t p re ju d ic e . I d . at171- 72. ¶2 6
. T h e C o u rtco n clud ed that the p lai n ti ff’ s m o tio n to d ism iss , a n d the d istri ct co u rt ’s g ra n t o f d is m is s a l, w e re b a s e d o n th e f a c t t h a t a c o m p la in t h a d n e v e r b e e n fi le d
. I d . at172. T her ef or e, the C our tcons trued the vol unt ary di s m i s s al w i thoutpr ej udi ce as a di s m i s s al f or la c k o f s u b

je c t m a tte r ju ri s d ic tio n . I d . at173- 74. I n s uppor tof i t s hol di ng, the C our tnot ed: U nl i ke B ar nes , t he r ecor d i n t hi s cas e support s t hatdi s m i s s al w as bas ed upon a “mat t erof

f or m ” notaf

f ect i ng the m er i t s –namel y, a l ack of j ur i s di ct i on due to th e a b se n c e o f a c o m p lain t. [ T h e P lain tiff] in a d v e rte n tly fo u n d h im se lf in a p ro c e d u ra l q u a g m ir e a n d m a d e a g o o d -f a ith e ff o rt to p re s e rv e h is c la im . W e f i nd t hatappl i cat i on of

the s avi ngs s t atut e t o [ the Pl ai nt i f f’ s ] 2005 compl ai nt i s appr opr i at e and c ons i s t entw i th the purpos es of the s t atut e. I d . at174. ¶27. W e f

i nd Cr aw f or d anal ogous t o the cas e atha nd. L i ke the pl ai nt i f f i n Craw ford , t he B enef i ci ar i es s oughtdi sm i ssal of thei rcaus e of

act i on bas ed on the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s l ack of
su b jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n . In fa c t, th e re c o rd d isc lo se s th a t th e B e n e fic iar ies d ili g e n tly cont es t ed the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on i n Shepard I
. The r ecor d s how s t hat the B en eficiari es so u g h t a R u le 54 (b) c erti fi ed jud g m en t t o ch all en g e the d istri c t co u rt ’s subjec tm att erj ur i s di ct i on. P ri o r t o th e d ism issal, th e B en eficiari es h ad fi led a m o tio n to
rem and and an int erl ocu t ory app eal of the o rderden ying t he m oti on t o rem and
. In r espon se t o the mot i on t o di s mi s s , KC S e xp r e s s l y s t a t e d tha tthe Ben e f i c i a r i e s h a d r e qu e s t e d t he di s m i s s al t o contes tthe court ’ s s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on. T her eaf t er , the B enef

i ci ar i es appea l ed the or derde nyi ng thei rm ot i on t o r emand. Ev e n mo r e c o mp e l l i n g i s th e o u t c o me of t he McK

ee c a se , in w h ich th e F if th C ir cu itC o u rto f A p p ea ls he ld tha t th e d istri ct co u rt12

lac k e d su b

jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n o v e r th e sa m e c laim s a ss e rte d ag a in st th e sa m e d e fe n d a n ts
a s th e c a s e a t h a n d
. 

### See McKee v . Kan. Cit y S. Ry. Co. , 358 F. 3d 329, 337 ( 5th Cir. 2004)
. ¶2 8. Si m i l art o t he pl ai nt i f f i n Craw

ford , the B enef

i ci ari es “i nadver t ent l y f ound [th em selv es] i n a p roc ed u ral qu ag m ir e a n d m ad e a g o o d -faith effo rtto p rese rve [th eir] cl ai m [ s ]
. ” Cr a w

fo r d , 9 9 0 S o . 2 d a t 1 7 4 . A t n o p o in t d id th e B e n e fi c ia ri e s a b a n d o n th e ir cl ai m s agai ns tK C S and the tr ai n cr ew . T hey cont i nual l y and i n good f ai th s oughtt o have th e m e rits o f th e ir c a se h e a rd in a M iss iss ip p i sta te c o u rt. See H aw kin s v. Scottis h U

ni on & N a t ’l I n s . Co
. , 110 M i s s . 23, 69 So. 710, 712 ( 1915) ( rul i ng thatgood f ai th i s an el ement t o cons i deri n det erm i ni ng the r i ghtt o invok e the sa vi ngs s t atut e)
. A f t err evi ew i ng t he
r ecor d, w e f

i nd the or derof

di s m i s s al a nd e ntry of

f i nal j udgm entw as a mat t erof f or m under Sect i on 15- 1- 69, as the di s m i s s al w as bas ed on the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s l ack of subj ectm att er ju ri s d ic tio n . P u rs u a n t to S e c tio n 1 5 -1 -6 9 , S h epa rd II w as t i m el y f i l ed, a nd w e r ever s e the
rul i ng of the C our tof

A ppeal s and the ci rcui tcour tand r emand t hi s cas e f orf ur ther proceed i ng s. CO NC L US I ON ¶2 9
. U n d er the fac ts an d circu m stan ce s o f th is c a se , w e fi n d the d ism issal of Shepard I
cons t i tut es a di s m i s s al as a mat t erof f orm u nderSect i on 15- 1- 69 of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ode. T h e B en eficiari es ti m ely re fi led th eir seco n d ca u se o f acti o n w ith in on e y ea r of Shepard I ’s d ism issal. T h ere fore , w e re v erse the ju d g m en t of th e C o u rt o f A p p ea ls an d the tri al co u rt j ud gm ent and rem and the case to the tr i al cou rtforfur ther proceedings. ¶ 3 0
. RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D.13

W AL L E R, C. J . , CA RL S ON AN D GRAVE S , P . J J . , DI CK I NS ON , RA ND OL P H, KI T CH E N S A N D P I E R C E , J J . , CO NC UR . CH AN DL E R, J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .