* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60723

TIA SAUCIER

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

COLDWELL BANKER JOSEPH M ENDRY REALTY; JOSEPH M ENDRY;

CLARA PLUMMER; TONYA ZIMMERN; SANDRA K SANCHEZ; ANDREA

PIPPEN; CELESTE M LACY; HANNAH W STANLEY; TIMOTHY J

NORRBOM; MYRA BLACKBURN

Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:04-CV-686

Before REAVLEY, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Tia Saucier (“Saucier”) appeals from the district court’s

dismissal of her claims for disgorgement of real estate commissions under

Mississippi Code Annotated § 73-35-31(2) based on lack of standing. She also

assigns as error the district court’s failure to consider certain affidavits. For the

following reasons, we AFFIRM.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 10, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-60723

2

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Saucier obtained a Florida and Mississippi real estate license in 1994 and

2002, respectively. In 2003, Saucier was hired by Coldwell Banker JME Realty

Company (“JME”) as a real estate sales associate at the Legacy Condominiums

located in Gulfport, Mississippi. JME was retained as the real estate broker to

market and sellthe Legacy units preconstruction. Saucier entered into multiple

agreements with JME regarding their obligations.

Later, Saucier believed that JME and JME employees had been engaging

in the marketing and sale of the Legacy condominiums without Mississippi

licensure, in violation of Mississippi laws. Saucier resigned her position and

requested payment of commissions from the sales of Legacy units. Saucier also

filed a complaint with the Mississippi Real Estate Commission, which found that

certain parties had violated Mississippi laws. Saucier argued that Defendants

hired her to use her position to comply with Mississippi real estate law without

giving her proper support and the opportunity to make sales. 

The Defendants moved for summary judgment. After considering the

rules of statutory construction,the district court determined that Saucier did not

qualify as a person aggrieved. The district court stated that “it is not reasonable

to consider Plaintiff as a ‘person aggrieved.’ A holding of this nature would

either leave those persons who actually paid the foreign agent without recourse,

or would open the proverbial floodgates of litigation and leave foreign agents

subject to endless lawsuits for the same conduct.” The court concluded that

Saucier lacked standing under § 73-35-31(2). 

Saucier had submitted affidavits to support her claim that she qualified

as a person aggrieved under Mississippi Code Annotated § 73-35-31(2). The

district court struck the affidavits which Saucier submitted in support of her §

73-35-31(2) claims because they offered legal conclusions and interpretations.

Saucier challenges both of these rulings on appeal. 
No. 07-60723

3

II. Standard of Review

“This court reviews a district court’s legal conclusions, including the

decision whether to grant a summary judgment motion, de novo.” Texas v.

United States, 497 F.3d 491, 495 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing Garcia v. LumaCorp,

Inc., 429 F.3d 549, 553 (5th Cir. 2005)). We also review issues of standing and

statutory interpretation de novo. Id. We review a district court’s factual

findings, including those on which the court based its legal conclusions, for clear

error. Id. (citation omitted).

III. Discussion

Saucier contends that she is entitled to relief under the following statute:

In case any person, partnership, association or corporation shall have

received any sum of money, or the equivalent thereto, as commission,

compensation or profit by or in consequence of his violation of any

provision of this chapter, such person, partnership, association or

corporation shall also be liable to a penalty of not less than the amount of

the sum of money so received and not more than four (4) times the sum so

received, as may be determined by the court, which penalty may be sued

for and recovered by any person aggrieved and for his use and benefit, in

any court of competent jurisdiction.

MISS. CODE ANN. § 73-35-31(2). Saucier argues that Defendants “illegally

usurped commissions to which she would have been entitled under Mississippi

law,” and therefore, she is a person aggrieved for purposes of the statute. 

We find that the district court properly applied the rules of statutory

construction and correctly concluded that Saucier lacked standing under § 73-35-

31(2). See Leary v. Stockman, 937 So. 2d 964, 974 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006)

(“Although [the plaintiff] is undoubtedly ‘aggrieved’ by the factual

circumstances, that does not necessarily mean he qualifies as a ‘person

aggrieved’ by [a defendant’s] unlicensed real estate transaction within the

context of Section 73-35-31. Rather, he was aggrieved by [a defendant’s] alleged
No. 07-60723

4

breach of contract.”). We also find no error in the district court’s decision to

strike the affidavits. 

IV. Conclusion

We affirm the district court’s rulings. Saucier also requested that we

consider the issue of the admissibility of certain evidence in a future trial if we

reverse the decision of the district court and find that Saucier has standing.

Because we do not reverse the district court’s finding, we need not address this

issue. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM.