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 4 - I A- 0 2 5 5 8 - S CT DEL T A A ND P

I NE L AN D C OM P AN Y
v. RE GI NA L D B UR NS CO NSOLI DATED W I TH NO. 2 0 0 4 - I A- 0 2 5 6 0 - S CT DEL T A A ND P

I NE L AN D C OM P AN Y
v. C A R L O SH

A R R IS CO NSOLI DATED W I TH

NO. 2 0 0 4 - I A- 0 2 5 6 1 - S CT DEL T A A ND P

I NE L AN D C OM P AN Y
v. VERNO N SM

I TH CO NSOLI DATED W I TH

NO. 2 0 0 4 - I A- 0 2 5 6 2 - S CT DEL T A A ND P

I NE L AN D C OM P AN Y
v. M I L TON B OYD

### 2 CO NSOLI DATED W I TH NO. 2 0 0 4 - I A- 0 2 5 6 3 - S CT DEL T A A ND P

I NE L AN D C OM P AN Y
v. TOM M I E GRAY CO NSOLI DATED W I TH NO. 2 0 0 4 - I A- 0 2 5 6 4 - S CT DEL T A A ND P

I NE L AN D C OM P AN Y
v. RODNE Y BU

RN S CO NSOLI DATED W I TH

NO. 2 0 0 4 - I A- 0 2 5 6 5 - S CT DEL T A A ND P

I NE L AN D C OM P AN Y
v. HORA CE AN

DERS ON D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 12/ 14/ 2004 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N
. JA N N IE M
. L E W IS COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HOLM ES COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A TTO RN EY S FO R A PPELL A N T: STEPH EN L. TH O M A S M A RG A RE T O ER TLI N G CU PPLES DANI E L L E DAI GL E I RE L AND E DWARD B L AC KM ON J OHN D. BR ADY AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E S : M AR K T HOMAS M c L E OD M IT C H E L L H A R R Y T Y N E R , S R
. NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 04/ 20/ 2006 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

### 3

EN BA NC. DI CK I NSON, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. I n t hes e s even cons ol i dat ed l aw s ui t s br ought by num er ous farm er s agai ns t D el t a and P in e L a n d C o m p a n y(“D P L ”), the q u e stio n p re se n ted is w h e th e r th e f a rm e rs w h o b ro u g h t su it forpoorcot t on cr op pr oduct i on w er e r equi r ed byM i s s . C ode A n n . Sect i on 69- 3- 19 ( 3) ( e) (1 9 9 9 ) (“ th e S e e d A c t”) to f ile a n a d m in istra tiv e c o m p lain t p rio r to b rin g in g su it. B AC KGR OU ND F AC T S AN D P RO CE E DI NG S ¶2. T hi s appea l ar i s es fr om a l aw s ui tfi l ed i n the C ir cu it C o u rt o f H o l m es C ount y on M ar ch 14, 2002, by fi fty - s i x pl ai nt i ffs agai ns t D PL
. T he seve n A ppel l ees befor e us , al ong
w ith th e o th e r f

o rty -n in e p lain tif

f s , are f a rm e rs w h o p u rc h a se d a n d p lan ted th e “ N u C o tn 33B ” cott on s eed var i ety pr oduced by D PL dur i ng the 1999 cr op s eas on. T he fa r m er s al l ege t hatt he N uC ot n 33B s eed w as “i nfer i ors eed, ca u sing [th em] t o obt ai n cott on y i el ds
s u b s ta n tia lly le s s th a n w h a t th e y w o u ld h a v e o b ta in e d h a d th e s e e d b e e n o f p ro p e r q u a lity.” ¶3. O n A ugust 1 1, 2004, D PL fi l ed a num ber of m ot i ons i n t he t r i al cour t , i ncl udi ng a M o tio n to S e v e r P lain tiff s’ C laim s a n d to T ra n sf

e r V e n u e , a M o tio n to D ism iss , a M o tio n to E nfor ce Forum Sel ect i on C l aus e, a M ot i on t o E nfor ce Li m i t at i on of R emedi es C l aus es , and a M oti on t o D i sm i ss W arr anty C l ai m s. O n D ecem ber 17, 2004 , foll ow i ng a heari ng on these

m ot i ons , t he ci r cui tcour t ent er ed an O r ders ever i ng t he pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m s and tr ans ferr i ng the
c laim s o f

c e rta in p la in ti f

f s to o th e r v e n u e s. A d d iti o n a lly , in e a c h o f th e se v e re d c a se s in

w hi ch H ol m es C ount y w as a prope r venue, t he t r i al cour t deni ed D PL ’ s r emai ni ng m ot i ons butcert ifi ed i t s deni al s of the mot i ons t o di s m i s s fori nt er l ocut oryr evi ew underform erSee e .g ., Ala. C ode §§ 2-26-70, et seq .; Ark. Code Ann. §§ 2-23-101, et seq .; Cal. Food & 1 Agric. Code §§ 52251, et seq .; Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 35-27-101, et seq .; Ga. Code Ann. §§ 2- 11-70, et seq .; Idaho Code §§ 22-413, et seq .; 710 I ll. Comp. Stat. 25/1, et seq .; Ind. Code Ann. §§ 15-4- 11- 1, et seq .; Tex. Agric . Code Ann. §§ 64.001, et seq . 

### 4 M i s s i s s i ppi R u le o f A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 5( a)
. T her eaf t er , D PL fi l ed i t s pet i t i ons for p erm issi o n to b ri n g interl o cu toryap p ea ls, an d o n Jan u ary 2 4 , 2 0 0 5 , this C o u rtg ran ted D P L ’s pet i t i ons forp erm i s s i on t o br i ng i nt er l ocut oryappea l s and i t s m ot i ons t o cons ol i dat e the seven int erl ocu t oryapp eal s. DI S CU S S I ON ¶4. M i s s i s s i ppi , l i ke m any ot her agr i cul tur al s t at es , has a d o p ted a S ee d A ct w hi ch 1 estab li sh es l ab eli n g req u ir em en ts fo r ag ri cu ltu ral see d d istri b u ted i n the sta te . See M i ss. C ode A nn. § 69- 3- 1 e ts eq . T he Seed A ctpr ovi des that , befor e a c ons um ercan s ue a di s t r i but orof agr i cul tur al s eed for al l eged fai l ur e of t he s eed t o per form as r epr es ent ed byt he l abel o r l a b e l i n g , t h e c o n s u me r mus t f i r s t f i l e a n a d mi n i s t r a t i v e c o mpl a i n t w i t h t he M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof A gr i cul tur e ( “M D A ”) “w i t hi n s uch t i m e as t o perm i ti ns pect i on of the cr ops . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 69- 3- 19( 3) ( e) ( i ) ( 1999)
. Speci fi cal l y , the Seed A ct provides: A s a pr er equi s i t e t o fi l i ng a ca us e of a ct i on agai ns ta s eeds m an, a co n s um er w ho i s damaged byt he fai l ur e of agr i cul tur al , veget abl e, fl ow er orfor es tt r ee s eed t o pr oduce or p erf or m as r epr es ent ed bythe l abel at t ache d t o s uch s eed undert he provi s i ons of S ect i on 69- 3- 5, M i s s i s s i ppi C ode of 1972, s hal l m ake a s w or n compl ai ntagai ns ts uch s eeds m an all egi ng damages s us t ai ned. T he compl ai nts hal l be fi l ed w i t h [M D A ] and [M D A ] s hal l s end a c opyof the c o m p lain t t o the seedsm an b ycert i fi ed m ai l , w i t hin such t i m e as t o p erm it in sp e c tio n o f

th e c ro p s, p lan ts o r tre e s b yth e se e d a rb itr a tio n c o u n c il o r its r epr es ent at i ves and byt he s eeds m an fr om w hom the s eed w as pur chas ed.At thetim etheplaintiffs’ c laims a c c ru e d, se c tio n 6 9- 3- 19 (3 )( e ) ( 19 99 ) g ov e rn e d. Th is 2 se c tio n h a s sinc ebe e n repe a le d. Se c tio n 6 9-3-2 2 b e c amee ff e c tiv eon July 1, 20 00 , a

nd is almo st identical to the former section 69-3-19( 3)(e ) with one major exception. The new sec tion broadens the scopeof ac tions covere d by the administrative complaint re quirement a nd includes alleg ations of damag e for

failure of the see d to perfor m “[a]s represente d by

the label or

labelingwhether

related to specificrepresentations on the label, other infor mation on the seed c ontainer, or conditions attributable to the quality of the see d . . . .” Miss. Code Ann. 69-3-22 ( 2000).



### 5 M iss. C o d e A n n . § 6 9 -3-1 9 (3)(e)(i) (19 9 9 ). 2 ¶ 5
. I n or der t o enfor ce i t s pr o v i s i o n s , t h e Se e d Actr e q u i r e s a s e e d s ma n t o n o t i fy
con sum ers of the m and at oryarbi t rat i on requi rem ent as foll ow s: L anguage s et t i ng for t h t he r equi r ementforfi l i ng and s ervi ng s uch compl ai nt s hal l be l egi bl yt yped orpr i nt ed on the s eed pa ckage s orthe ana l y sis l abel at t ache d t o the pac ki ng cont ai ni ng t h e see d att he t i m e of pur chas e byt he con sum er as foll ow s: “N O T I C E : A s a p rer equi s i t e t o m ai nt ai ni ng a l egal act i on bas ed upon the f a ilu re o f s e e d to w h ic h t h i s l a b e l is a tta c h e d to p ro d u c e a s re p re s e n te d , a co n su m er sh all fil e a sw o rn c o m p lai n t w ith the C o m m issi o n er o f A g ri cu ltu re and C om m er ce w i t hi n s uch t i m e as t o perm i t i ns pect i on of t he cr ops , pl ant s or tr e e s .” I f l anguage s et t i ng for t h t he r equi r ementi s not s o pl ace d on the s eed pa ckage o r a n a ly sis lab e l, th e f

ili n g a n d se rv in g o f

a c o m p lain t u n d e r th is p a ra g ra p h is notr equi r ed. M is s . C o d e A n n . § 6 9 -3 -1 9 (3 )( e )( ii) (1 9 9 9 ). ¶6. I n comp li an ce w it h t hi s s t atut e, eac h bag of N uC otn 33B s ol d i n 1999 cont ai ned a N O T IC E T O B U Y E R , w h ich p ro v id e d , in p e rtin e n t p a rt: T h e se ed law s o f s e v e ra l st ates inc lud ing
. . . M issi ssipp i .
. . req u ir e arbi t r at i on, conci l i at i on orm edi at i on of di s put es bas ed upon al l eged f ai l ur e of t he see d t o pr oper l y pr oduce or per form as r epr es ent ed by t he l abel orl abel i ng b e f o re c e rta in leg a l ac tio n s m a yb e m a in ta in e d a g a in st a se ller. A tim e ly c o m p lain t . . . w ith th e re q u ire d f ili n g f e e (w h e re a p p lica b le) m u st b e f iled w ith t he D epart m ent of A gr i cul tur e, St at e P l ant B oar d, Seed C om m i s s i on orother

### 6

appl i cabl e off

i ci al s as r equir ed bys t at e l aw w i t hi n s uch t i m e t o al l ow t he i n s p e c t i o n o f

s e e d , c r o p s , o rp l a n t s b y d e s i g n a t e d a g e n c y. ¶7. T he pl ai nt i ffs as s er t t hat t he N uC otn s eed t hey pur chas ed and pl ant ed i n 1999 w as defe ct i ve, caus i ng t hem t o exper i ence an abnorm al l y l ow cot t on y i el d. T he compl ai ntal l eges negl i gence , br eac h of i m pl i ed w arr antyof m er chant abi l i t y , br eac h of w arr antyof fi t nes s for a part i cul arpurpos e, br eac h of expr es s w arr ant i es , gr os s negl i gence , fr aud, i n tention al i nt er fer ence w i t h pr os pect i ve ec onom i c oppor tuni t i es , and t or t i ous i nt er fer ence w i th a bus i nes s r el at i ons hi p. ¶8. D PL cont ends the t r i al cour t comm i t t ed err or by deny i ng i t s m ot i on t o di s m i s s . T he pl ai nt i ffs as s er tt hatt he tr i al court ’s d en ial w as pr operbeca us e thei rFi r s tA m ended C om pl ai ntdoes notal l ege da m age due t o t he fai l ur e of t he see d “t o pr oduce orper form as
r epr es ent ed byt he l abel
. ” Thu s, the pl ai nt i ffs cl ai m t heyw er e notr equi r ed t o fi l e an
a d m in istra tiv e c o m p lain t p rio r to f ili n g su it. ¶9. T he is sue present ed b yD P L i s: D i d the tr i al cou rt err i n fai l i ng t o grant D P L ’s m oti on t o dis m i ss the p l ai nti ffs’ c l a i ms , a r i s i n g o u to f

a n a l l e g e d d e f

e c ti n c o t t o n s e e d ma n u f a c tu r e d b yDPL, f o r f a ilu re to c o m p lyw ith p re re q u is it e s to su it, w h e re th e p lain tiff s f a iled to f ile a d m in istra tiv e c o m p lain ts a g a in st D P L “ w it h in su c h tim e a s to p e rm it i n s p e c t i o n o f

t h e c r o p s ” p u r s u a n tt o th e Se e d Act ? ¶10
. T his app eal turns on the qu est i on o f w hetherthe p l ai nti ffs w ere r equ i red by M i ss. C o d e A n n . S e c tio n 6 9 -3 -1 9 (3 )(e )(i)(1 9 9 9 ) to f ile a n a d m in istra ti v e c o m p lain t an d su b m it their claim s ag ains t D P L to n o n -bin d ing arb itrati o n b ef o re the C o m m issi o n o f A g ri cu ltu re and C om m er ce a s a p rereq ui s i t e t o fi l i ng s ui ti n ci r cui tcour t . O uranal y s i s begi ns w i th a

r evi ew and di s cus s i on of the appl i cabl e s ect i ons of the M i s s i s s i ppi Seed A ct . Fur t herm or e,

### 7

t hi s cour templ oy s a de novo s t andar d of r evi ew of a tr i al court ’ s gr antordeni al of a mot i on to d is m is s . See H

a rr is v . Miss V

a lley S ta te U

n iv

. 8 7 3 S o . 2 d 9 7 0 , 9 8 8 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). ¶11
. T h e S e e d A c t r e q u ire s th a t s e e d c o n tain e r l abels i nclude cert ain sp e c if ic
re p re se n tatio n s s u c h a s th e k in d a n d v a rie tyo f s e e d s c o n tain e d , lot n u m b e r, n e t w e ig h t,
o r i g i n , p e r c e n t a g e b y wei g h t o f t yp e s o f s e e d s a n d i n e r t ma t t e r , a n d t h e l i k e. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 69- 3- 5 ( 1999)
. U nder t he 1999 ver s i on of the s t atut e, a cons um eral l egi ng damage

“ b yt h e f a i l u r e o f a g r i c u l tu r a l , v e g e t a b l e , f l o we r o r f

o r e s t t r e e s e e d t o p r o d u c e o rp e r f o r m as
r epr es ented by the label attached t o such seed un der the p rovi si on s of S ect i on 69 -3- 5" m ust fi l e a c ompl a i nt w i t h t he M D A fo r s ub mi s s i on of c l a i ms t o t he a rbi t r a t i on c ou nc i l as a condi t i on pr ece dentt o t he r i ghtt o s ue i n cour t . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 69- 3- 19( 3) ( e) ( i ) ( 1999) (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶ 1 2
. T he provi s i on r e q u i r i n g t h e ma n u f a c tu r e rt o a t t a c h a s p e c i f i c not i ce i nfor m i ng
cons um er s of the admi ni s t r at i ve compl ai ntr equi r ements t at es t hat compl ai nt s m us tbe fi l ed

w ith th e M D A o n lyif

th e c laim s a re “ b a se d u p o n th e f a ilu re o f se e d to w h ich th is la b e l is
a ttac h e d to p ro d u c e a s re p re se n ted .” M iss . C o d e A n n . § 6 9 -3 -1 9 (3 )(e )(ii) (1 9 9 9 ). In f a c t, D P L ’s “ N O T IC E T O B U Y E R ” p lac e d o n e a c h b a g o f N u C o tn 3 3 B so ld in 1 9 9 9 o n ly i nform ed cons um er s t hatcl ai m s “bas ed upon al l eged f ai l ur e of the s eed t o pr oper l ypr oduce
o rp r e f o r m as r e

pr e s e nte d b

y t he lab e l orlabeling ” mu s tf

i r s tb e f i l e d wi t h th e M DA. (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶13. T he pl ai nt i ffs i ns i s t t hei r cl ai m s do not al l ege damage by fai l ur e of t he s eed t o pr oduce
or per form i n acc or dance w i t h t he l abel i ng r equi r ement of M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 69- 3- 5.

### 8

R ather , t heypoi ntoutt hatt he Fi r s tA m ended Com pl ai ntal l eges cl ai m s of negl i gence , br eac h of i m pl i ed w arr antyof m er chant abi l i t y , br eac h of w arr anty of fi t nes s for a part i cul arpurpos e, b re a c h o f

e x p re ss w a rra n ties , g ro ss n e g lig e n c e , fr a u d , inte n tio n a l in ter f e re n c e w ith pr os pect i ve economi c oppor tuni t i es , and t ort i ous i nt er fer ence w i t h a bus i nes s r el at i ons hi p. S p e c if ica lly , the p lain tiff

s a ss e rt th a t D P L e n g a g e d in w ro n g f u l c o n d u c t, su c h a s fa ilu re to
m ai nt ai n adequa t e i nvent or ycontr ol s and pr ocedur es t o as s ure a su ffi ci enti nvent or yof qual i t ys eed, fai l ur e t o pr oper l ys t or e the cott on s eed i nvent oryhel d forr es ale, a n d ot her

m isc o n d u c t, so a s to re n d e r itse lf m o re a ttrac tiv e f

in a n c iallyf

o r a p e n d in g m e rg e r w ith M ons ant o. Pl ai nt i ffs m ai nt ai n t hatD PL ’s “ N O T I C E T O B U Y E R ” and otherpacka ge l abel i ng di d notcont ai n anyw arr ant i es orr epr es ent at i ons r egar di ng t hes e types of al l egat i ons and cl ai m s and, t her efor e, beca us e thei rcl ai m s do not al l ege damage by fai l ur e of the s eed t o p roduce orper form i n acc or dance w i t h t he l abel i ng r equi r ementof M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 69- 3- 5 , they w ere notr equi r ed t o fi r s tfi l e an a dm i ni s t r at i ve compl ai ntw i th t he M D A , n o r w e re th e yre q u ire d to su b m it th e ir c laim s to a rb itratio n p rio r to f ili n g su it i n sta te
c o u rt. ¶14. D PL qui t e aggr es s i vel y ar gues t hat t he p lai n ti ffs’ fa il u re to f i l e admi ni s t r at i ve compl ai nt s w i t h t he M D A w i t hi n s uch t i m e as t o perm i ti ns pect i on of the cr ops depr i ved th e m o f th e a b ili ty to in v e stig a te th e c ro p s a n d d e f e n d itse lf in th e se c a se s. D P L ’s in a b ili ty t o engage i n an evi dence gather i ng proc ess an d i nves t i gat e the s eed c l ai m s w hi l e the cr op
wa s s t i l l p l a n t e d c e r t a i n l yl i mi t e d t h e th e o r i e s a v a i l a b l e t o d e f e n d th e c l a i ms a g a i n s tt h e m.

### 9

¶15. H ow ever , w e ar e bound by t he w or ds and pr ovi sion s o f th e statutes tha t our L e g isla tu re e n a c ts. T h e a p p lica b le p ro v isio n o f th e 1 9 9 9 v e rsio n o f

th e S e e d A c t sp e c if

ica lly sta tes th a t o n ly c la im s re latin g to d a m a g e b yf a ilu re o f th e se e d to p ro d u c e o r p e rf o rm in
acc or dance w i t h t he l abel i ng r equi r ement of M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 69- 3- 5 m us tfi r s tbe
s ubm i t t ed t o t he M D A
. M i s s . C od e A n n . S ect i on 69- 3- 19( 3) ( e) ( i i ) ( 1999)
. I ndeed, the
curr entr evi s ed pr ovi s i on of the Seed A ct , w hi ch t ook eff ecton Jul y1, 2000, br oadens t he
s cope of act i ons cover ed byt he admi ni s t r at i ve compl ai ntr equi r ementt o i ncl ude al l egat i ons of damage forfai l ur e of the s eed t o per form “[a ] s rep resent ed bythe l abel orl abel i ng
w h e th e r re la te d to s p e c if ic re p re s e n ta tio n s o n t h e l a b e l, ot her i nf orm at i on on the s eed cont ai ner, or condi t i ons at t ri butabl e t o t he qual i t y of t he s eed
. . . . ” See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 69- 3- 22 ( 2000)
. ( E m phas i s added)
. U nder t hi s curr ent ver s i on of t he S eed A ctthe p l a i n t i f f s c l e a r l ywo u l d h a v e b e e n r e q u i r e d t o f i l e a n a d mi n i s t r a t i v e c o mp l a i n twi t h t h e M DA p rio r to f ili n g su it ag a in st D P L in th e c irc u it c o u rt. H o w e v e r, th e 1 9 9 9 v e rsio n o f th e sta tu te i n eff ectatt he t i m e of the pl ai nt i ffs’ claim s d id noti ncl ude the addi t i onal l anguage , “or condi t ion s att ri but abl e t o t he qual i t yof the s eed. ” Pl ai nt i ffs r ecogni ze a nd agr ee thatt hey

m aynotpur s ue anycl ai m bas ed upon fa i l ur e of the se ed t o per form as r epr es ent ed byt he l abel. Inst ead, theycl ai m t heirsui ti s unrel at ed to r epresent at i on s of t he label i ng . T hu s, p lain tiff s w e re n o t r e q u ire d to f

irst f ile a n a d m in istra tiv e c o m p lain t p rio r to c o m m e n c in g su it
a g a i n s tDPL. ¶16. I n ar gui ng t o t he contr ary , D P L r el i es on t hi s C our t ’ s enfor cement of a cr opdus t er sta tu te s im ilar to th e S e e d A c t. Its re lian c e is m isp lac e d . T h e c ro p d u ste r sta tu te a t issu e in

### 10

Ev a n s v. Bo

y le Fl y in g S e r v i c e, I

nc . , 6 8 0 So. 2d 821 ( M i s s . 1996) appl i ed t o negl i gence
a c tio n s a n d p ro v id e d a s p e c if ic tim e lim it f

o r s u b m is s io n o f

a c la im to M D A
. See M i s s . C ode An n . § 6 9
- 2 1
- 1 2 3
. Th i s Co u r tp r o p e r l ye n f o r c e d t h e s t a tu t e t o b a rp r o p e r t yo wn e r s ’ c l a i ms
a g a in st a c ro p d u ste r f

o r n e g lig e n t ap p lica tio n o f c h e m ica ls b e c a u se th e p lain tiff s f a iled to f ir s t f ile n o tic e o f

th e irc la im s . Id . a t 8 2 9 . H o w e v e r, th e 1 9 9 9 v e rsio n o f th e S e e d A c t o n ly

r equi r ed fi l i ng admi ni s t r at i ve compl ai nt s foral l egat i ons of damage bas ed on nonconform ance w i t h Sect i on 69- 3- 5 l abel i ng r epr es ent at i ons . T he 1999 S ee d A ct di d not

r equi r e admi ni s t r at i ve compl ai nt s fornegl i gence act i ons , fr aud ac t i ons , oranyot heract i ons out s i de thi s s cope. ¶17. Fi nal l y , i t i s w or t h not i ng t hat atone poi nti n the cour s e of de fendi ng cl ai m s r egar di ng N uCotn 3 3B, D PL ag r e e d tha tt he pl a i nt i ff s w e r e no ta s s e r t i ng a nyl a be l vi ol a t i on s . D PL defe nded manyadmi ni s t r at i ve compl ai nt s fi l ed by pl ai nt i ffs i n otherN uC otn 33B di s put es b ya rg u in g th a t “ n o p ro v isio n e x ists f o r c o n su m e rs to b e a llo w e d o r re q u ire d to f ile compl ai nt s w i t h t he D epart m entorC ounci l as a r es ul tof damages , otherthan fordamages
ar i s i ng outof . .
. l abel r epr es ent at i ons r equi r ed by§ 69- 3- 5. ” I n i t s ans w ert o t he admi ni s t r at i ve com pl ai nt s , D PL s t at ed t hat t he cl ai m s fai l ed t o al l ege da m ages r es ul t i ng fr om t he vi ol at i on of r epr es ent at i ons m ade on the s eed l abel as r equi r ed by § 69- 3- 5. Fol l ow i ng
a n u n su c c e ss f

u l ar b itratio n p ro c e ss w ith th e M D A , th e p lain tiff s p ro c e e d e d to p riv a te l i t i gati on i n ci rcui t cou rt w here D P L t hen assert ed the contr ary po si t i on t hat t he p lai nti ffs’
c laim s s o m e h o w trig g e re d th e a d m in istra tiv e c o m p lain t re q u ire m e n t.

### 11

¶1 8
. W e a re n o t persu ad ed b yD P L ’s att em p t to arg u e that the p lai n ti ff s in this ap p ea l w ere fi rs trequi red t o fil e adm i nis t rat i ve co m plai nts w i t hin t i m e t o p erm i ti nspecti on of the crops. A c c o rd in g to th e p lain lan g u a g e o f th e S e e d A c t as w ritten in 1 9 9 9 , the p lain tiff s w e re o n ly req ui r ed t o pur s ue the admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es i f thei rcl ai m s ar os e fr om damages r el at i ng t o t he l abel r equi r ement s and r epr es ent at i ons . T he pl ai nt i ffs i n thi s cas e do notal l ege l abel

v i o l a t i o n s b u tr a t h e rc l a i m s o f n e g l i g e n c e , b r e a c h o f

i m p l i e d w a r r a n t y o f

m e r c h a n t a b i l i ty, breach o f w arr anty o f f itn e ss fora part i cularpu rpose, breach o f exp res s w arr anti es, gross negl i gence , fr au d , i nt ent i onal i nt er fer ence w i t h pr os pect i ve ec onom i c oppor tuni t i es , and t or t i ous i nt er fer ence w i t h a bus i nes s r el at i ons hi p. Th e r e f o r e , th e c i r c ui tcourtpr oper l ydeni ed D PL ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s s uch cl ai m s bas ed on the pl ai nt i ffs’ fa il ur e t o fi l e admi ni s t r at i ve compl ai nt s . A nyr emai ni ng fac tual ques t i on of w hether any of t he cl ai m s pr es ent ed attr i al

w a n d e ri n t o t h e a r e a o f

l a b e l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s m u s tb e d e c i d e d b y a p r o p e r l y- i n s t ru c t e d j u r y.

CONCL US I ON ¶19. Fort hes e r eas ons , w e af fi rm the circu it co u rt ’s deni al of D el t a and Pi ne L and C om pan y ’s M oti on t o D i sm i ss.

S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R AND C OBB , P . J J . , EA SLEY, CARL S ON AND GR AV E S , J J . , CO NC UR . DI AZ AN D R AN DO L P H, J J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .