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 3 - CA- 0 0 9 3 9 - S CT TH E H OTB OX

XX, LLC
v. CI TY O F G ULF

POR T, M

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 03/ 28/ 2013 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. SAN FORD R. STECKLER COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HARRI S ON COU NTY CHANCERY COURT AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L ANT : BL E W E T T W
. T HOMAS AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : J E F F RE Y S
. BR UNI NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 01/ 08/ 2015 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 R A N D O L P H , P . J. , K I N G A N D C O L E M A N , JJ. CO LEM AN, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. A t i s s ue i n the i ns t ant di s put e i s w hetherThe H otboxxx, LL C , ha s s t andi ng t o br i ng
su it ch a llen g in g th e c o n stitu tio n a lity o f a z o n in g o rd in a n c e p a ss e d b y th e C ity o f G u lfp o rt. H o tb o x x x claim s tha t th e c h an ce ry c o u rterred b y fi n d ing ith ad su b m itted a n inv a lid pr i vi l ege l i cens e appl i cat i on and that , r egar dl es s of the i nval i d l i cens e appl i cat i on, i thas st and i ng t o s ue. T he C i ty of G ul f por tm ai nt ai ns thatthe appl i cat i on w as i ncompl et e and in v a lid ; th e re fo re , H o tb o x x x d o e s n o t h a v e sta n d in g . B e c a u se H o tb o x x x d id n o t p ro p e rly file
a n a p p l i c a t i o n a n d b e c a u s e Ho tb o x x x ’ s c o mm e r c i a l p r o p e r ty l e a s e wa s th e r e f o r e v o i d , we hol d thatH otboxxx i ndeed l acks s t andi ng. T hus , w e af f i r m the j udgm entof

the H arr i s on

### 2

C o u n ty C h a n c e ry C o u rt th a t H o tb o x x x ’s a p p lica tio n w a s in c o m p lete a n d in v a lid a n d th a t it h a d n o s ta n d in g . F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2. O n Sept ember 17, 2009, B arry A r t z, co- ow ner of T he H otboxxx, L L C ( pr evi ous l y A & P E n terprises, L L C ) fi led a b u sine ss p ri v il eg e li ce n se a p p li ca ti o n w ith the C ity o f G u lf p o rt f or t he op erat i on of

an adul tent ert ai nm entr et ai l er . A tthe t i m e, A r t z al r eady ha d s i gned a l eas e f orcom m erci al of

f i ce s pace l ocat ed at1820 Pas s R oad i n G ul f por t , M i s s i s s i ppi , and H otboxxx had gener at ed a busi nes s pl an. O n O ct ober7, 2009, A r t z w as i nf or m ed t hatt he H o tb o x x x ap p lica tio n h a d b e e n fo rw a rd e d to th e c ity a tto rn e y . O n D e c e m b e r 1 , 2 0 0 9 , A rtz
r ece i ved a l ett erf

r om t he ci ty att orney s t at i ng that , i n pr epar at i on f ornew r egul at i ons
conce rni ng adul tbus i nes s es , the ci ty couns el w oul d cons i dera morat ori um on i s s ui ng pr i vi l ege l i cens e appl i cat i ons . Subse quent l y, i n J anuary 2010, w i thoutacce pt i ng or r ej ect i ng the H otboxxx appl i cat i on, the ci ty pl ace d a s i x- m onth m or at or i um on i s s ui ng pr i vi l ege l i cens es . O n J une 22, 2010, t he ci ty pass ed O r di nance C as e # 1006PC 088 ( her ei naf t ert he O rd in a n c e ), w h ich c o n tain e d z o n in g re g u latio n s re stric tin g th e a re a s o f to w n in w h ich a d u lt bus i nes s es coul d be l ocat ed. T he new zoni ng re gul at i ons pr event ed H otboxxx f r om openi ng its a d u lt b u s in e s s a t th e lo c a tio n w h e re it h a d o b ta in e d a le a s e . ¶3
. O n A u g u st 16 , 2 0 1 0 , H o tbo x x x fi led a co m p lai n t i n H arrison C o u n ty C h an ce ry C o u rt
c laim in g th a t th e o rd in a n c e w a s u n c o n stitu tio n a l. T h e C ity o f G u lfp o rt re m o v e d th e c a se to t he Fe de r a l Di s tr i c tCourtf orthe So uthe rn D i s tr i c to f M i s s i s s i pp i a nd f

i l e d a mot i on f

or d ism iss a l u n d e r F e d e ra l R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 5 6 , cla im in g th a t H o tb o x x x h a d fa iled to
s ubm i ta compl et ed appl i cat i on and ther ef or e l acke d s t andi ng t o s ue. H otboxxx then f i l ed

### 3

an amended compl ai nt , con t endi ng i thad s t andi ng t o s ue bec aus e, underthe M i s s i s s i ppi stan d ard for stan d ing , ith ad a c o lorab le i n terest. O n Jan u ary 2 6 , 2 0 1 1 , the d istri ct co u rt di s m i s s ed the ca s e f

orl ack of

s t andi ng. T he di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s ed the ca s e w i thout pr ej udi ce, f

i ndi ng t hat , underthe f eder al s t andi ng r equi r ement s , H otboxx x’s cl ai m w as “s pecul at i ve and hypot heti cal ” bec aus e i tw as undi s put ed thatthe appl i cat i on w as not compl et e. ¶4
. O n F eb rua ry 1 , 2 0 1 1 , H o tbo x x x fi led a n ew co m p lai n t in H arrison C o u n ty C h an ce ry C o u rt, citin g th e sa m e iss u e s p re se n ted in th e first s u it. G u lfp o rt th e n filed a M o tio n to D i s m i s s , not i ng thatthe cas e pr evi ous l y ha d be en di s m i s s ed by the di s tr i ctcourtf orl ack of st and i ng , precl ud i ng H otboxx x fr om bri ng i ng the cl ai m s again und er the pri n ciple o f r es ju d ica ta . H otboxxx r es ponded t o the M ot i on t o D i s m i s s, clai m i ng thatdi s m i s s al w i thout pr ej udi ce di d notpr ecl ude a se cond s ui tand thats t andi ng r equi r ement s ar e di f f er entf or M i ssi ssi pp i
. A dd i t i on al l y, H otboxx x clai m ed thatG ulf po rth as a m i nis t eri al d uty t o ad vis e the appl i cantof

any omi s s i ons i n i t s appl i cat i on. ¶5. W i thout a f

or m al hear i ng on the m att er, on Jul y 9, 20 12, the chanc ery courti s s ued Fi ndi ngs of

Factand C oncl us i ons of L aw . Fi r s t , i ts t at ed thatthe appl i cat i on w as i ncompl et e, as d eterm ined by th e d istri ct co u rt . S ec o n d , u n d er re s ju d ica ta , itd et erm i ned the i nst ant cas e
w as di ff erentfr om the o ne o ri ginal l y fi l ed, “b ut al l the m at eri al is sues t hat this C ou rtm ust add r e s s h a ve a l r e a dy b e e n a dd r e s s e d by the Fe de r a l Di s tr i c tCourt . ” H otbo xx x f i l ed a M ot i on t o V aca t e the Fi ndi ngs of Fact , advanc i ng f

ouri s s ues . H otboxxx cl ai m ed the foll o w ing : th e issu e o f a v ali d ap p li ca ti o n w a s c o n test ed an d n o t subject t o su m m ary ju d g m e n t, r es j udi cata di d nota ppl y, H otboxxx ha s s t andi ng, and eve n des pi t e re s ju d ica ta ,

### 4

H o tb o x x x is n o t b a rre d fro m p lea d in g a n e w fe d e ra l c iv il ri g h ts c laim . F in d in g m e rit in H otboxxx’ s m ot i on, t he chanc ery cour tt hen bi f ur cat ed t he t r i al , st at i ng t hatther e w as a nee d t o h ear f

i rs tthe is sue of w hetherH otbox xx had subm i t t ed a v al i d p ri vil ege li cense appl i cat i on. ¶6. A tthe hea r i ng f

r om February 25, 2013, t o February 26, 2013, A r t z cl ai m ed that , w hen he s ubm i t t ed hi s appl i cat i on, he knew of a f l ow chartthati ndi cat ed hi s l i cens e w oul d be pr oces s ed w i thi n a t en- day per i od. A r t z al s o c l ai m ed that , w hen he s ubm i t t ed hi s appl i cat i on, he s ubm i t t ed the w hol e, com pl et e appl i cat i on. G ul f por tcl ai m ed thatthe appl i cat i on w as not
s i gned ornot ar i zed a s r equi r ed. B oth part i es di sputed w hich ve r s i on of the appl i cat i on – thr ee ve r s i ons exi s t ed – w as actual l y submi t t ed t o t he ci ty. A tt he cl os e of the hea r i ng, t he chanc el l orm ade a bench rul i ng thatE xhi bi t4 w as the pr i vi l ege appl i cat i on s ubm i t t ed t o t he ci ty, and i tw as i ncompl et e. S ubseque nt l y, on M ar ch 28, 2013, i n hi s Fi nal J udgm entand O r dero f Di s mi s s a l wi th Pr e

j ud i c e u nd e rRul e 1 2 orRul e 5 6, the c ha nc e l l ors t a t e d t hatan i n c o m p l e t e a p p l i c a t i o n h a d b e e n s u b m i t t e d a n d th a tH o tb o x x x h a d n o s t a n d i n g t o s u e . He then r e- adopt ed and i ncorpor at ed hi s J ul y 9, 2012, Fi ndi ngs of Factand C oncl us i ons of L aw f orany r emai ni ng i s s ues . H otboxxx appea l ed. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶7
. Fi ndi ngs of a c ha nc e l l or w i l l no t be di s turbe d on r e vi e w un l e s s the c ha ncel l orw as “mani f es t l y w r ong, cl ear l y err oneous, orappl i ed the w r ong l egal s t andar d. ” B luew ater L og isti cs, L L C

v. W il li ford , 55 So. 3d 148, 166 ( M i s s . 2011) ( quot i ng P o w e ll v. Ca m p b e ll , 912 So. 2d 978, 981 ( M i s s . 2005) )
. T he C our tw i l l appl y abuse of di s cr et i on w hen r evi ew i ng
a c h a n c e llo r’ s d e c is io n . Mis s is s i ppiP ow erCo v. H

anson , 905 So. 2d 547, 549 ( M i s s . 2005)

### 5

( ci t i ng McN

eil v. Hes ter , 753 So. 2d 1057, 1063 ( M i s s. 2 00 0))
. F orques t i ons of l aw , t he Co u r twi l l a p p l y th e d e n o v o s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w. I

d. DI S CU S S I ON ¶8. O n ap peal, H otboxx x rai ses f ou r i ssues: (1 ) W h e th e r th e H a r r iso n C o u n ty C h a n c e r y C o u r t c o m m itte d r e v e r sib le er r o r w h en it a d ju d icate d th e issu e o f the A p p ell a n t’s stan d ing to c hal l e nge a G ul f

por t c i t y or di nanc e s ol e l y on t he ba s i s o f whet her t he A p p el l an t had s ubm i t t ed a “val i d l i cens e appl i cat i on” t o t he C i t y of G u lf p o rt. (2 ) W h e th e r th e H a r r iso n C o u n ty C h a n c e r y C o u r t c o m m itte d r e v e r sib le err or w hen i t adj udi cat ed t ha t t h e F ederalD i s t ri ct C ourt ’ s di s m i s s al w i thou t prejud i ce of t h e A p p el l an t’ s i n i ti al s tat e c o u rt law suit w as r es j udi cata o n th e A p p e lla n t’ s s e c o n d c h a n c e r y c o u r t l a w s u it . (3 ) W h e th e r th e H a r r iso n C o u n ty C h a n c e r y C o u r t c o m m itte d r e v e r sib le err or w hen i t f

ai l ed t o adj udi cat e the C i ty of G ul f port ’ s M ot i on f

or Sum m ary Judgm ent und er the s t andards gover ni ng di s m i s s al und er M i s s i s s i ppi C i vi l P roce dure R ul e 56. (4) A ssu m ing it w a s p ro p er for th e H a rr ison C o u n ty C h a n ce ry C o u rt to adj udi cat e t hat t he A ppe l l an t ’ s ori gi nal cl ai m s w ere barred by r es ju dica ta , the ch a n ce ry co u rt c o m m it ted re v er sible e rr o r w h en it fail ed to a llo w th e A p p e lla n t to p r o c e e d o n its su b se q u e n tly d isc o v e r e d fe d e r a l civ il righ ts c la im s th a t w er e n eith er k n o w n n o r a sser ted in th e a p p ell a n t’s initi a l com p laint. T he f i r s ttw o i s s ues broughtby H otboxxx on appea l ar e di s pos i t i ve. T he C our tconsi der s t he
sec o n d issue fi rstb ec au se, i f r es j udi cata appl i es , the part i es had no r i ghtt o appea l the hol di ng of

the f eder al di s tr i ctcourt . C oncl udi ng r es j udi cata does notappl y, t he C our tt hen
co n side rs th e issu e o f w h ethe r H o tbo x x x su b m itted a v alid a p p li ca ti o n an d w h ethe r,
r egar dl es s of

the val i di ty of

the appl i cat i on, H otboxxx has s t andi ng. T he C ourthol ds t hat H o tb o x x x ’s a p p lic a tio n is in v a lid , a n d , a c c o rd in g ly , H o tb o x x x la c k s s ta n d in g .

### 6

(2 ) W h e th e r th e H a r r iso n C o u n ty C h a n c e r y C o u r t c o m m itte d r e v e r sib le err or w hen it a d j udi cat ed t hat t he F ederalD i s t ri ct C ourt ’ s di s m i s s al w i thou t prejud i ce of t h e A p p el l an t’ s i n i ti a l state cour t l aw suit w as r es j udi cata o n th e A p p e lla n t’ s s e c o n d c h a n c e r y c o u r t l a w s u it . ¶9
. T h e C ity o f G u lf p o rtco n tend s tha t th e d o ctri n e o f r e s j ud i cata prevent s H otboxxx fro m re lit ig a tin g th e iss u e s b e c a u se th e sa m e iss u e s w e re litiga ted a n d a d ju d ica ted p re v io u sly b e fo re th e d is tr ic t c o u rt. H o tb o x x x a rg u e s th a t r es j udi cata d o es n o t app ly b ec au se th ere exi s t s nei theran adj udi cat i on by a cou rto f compet entj ur i s di ct i on nora dec i s i on on t he
m eri t s. ¶ 1 0
. R es j udi cata appl i es w hen ther e i s a f i nal j udgm enton the m er i t s . The C our t empl oys f ouri dent i t i es t o det erm i ne w hetherr es j udi cata appl i es : “ ( 1) i dent i ty of the s ubj ectm att er of the ac t i on, ( 2) i dent i ty of the ca us e of

act i on, ( 3) i dent i ty of

the part i es t o the ca us e of
a c tio n , an d (4 ) id e n tity o f th e q u a lity o r c h a ra c ter o f a p e rso n a g a in st w h o m th e c laim is
m ade. ” D unaw ay v. W

. H . Hopper& A s s ocs . , I

nc. , 4 2 2 S o . 2 d 7 4 9 , 7 5 1 (M iss . 1 9 8 2 ). If a ll fo u r o f t h e id e n titie s a re p re s e n t, r es j udi cata appl i es . T he C our tcons i s t ent l y has hel d t hat d is m is s a l w ith o u t p re

ju d ic e is n o t a n a d

ju d ic a tio n o n th e m e ri ts , a n d th e re fo re , re s ju d ica ta d o e s n o t a p p ly
. B os ton v. Har t f or d A ccident

& I ndem . Co. , 822 S o. 2d 23 9, 24 8-49 (M i ss. 2 0 0 2 ), over r ul ed on othergr ounds by Capital Cit y In s. Co. v. G. B . “B oot s ” Sm ith C or

p. , 8 8 9 S o . 2 d 5 0 5 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ); Me m b e rs o f D e m o c ra tic Ex e c u tive Co m m ., L a u de rda le Count y v. H atcher , 168 So. 2d 533, 535 ( 1964) ( “The ef f ectof the w or ds ‘ w i thoutpr ej udi ce’ is t o p rev en t th e d ec ree o f dism issal f rom o p era ti n g as a b ar to a su b seq u en t suit
. ”). ¶11. T he di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s ed the ca s e betw een H otboxxx and G ul f por t , s t at i ng: “[ T ] he C our tf i nds that[ H otbo xx x] d oes nothave s t andi ng t o pur s ue a f aci al chal l enge of

t he

### 7

ordi nan ce. T hu s, the C ou rtl acks j uri sdi ct i on . . . . A s a r esul t , the C ou rtw i l l d ism is s [H o tbo x x x ’s] claim s w ith o u t prejud ice.” (E m p h a sis ad d ed
. ) T h u s, the fe d era l cou rt ’s d is m is s a l d o e s n o t b a r H o tb o x x x fr o m re fi lin g th e c a s e . ¶12. Fur ther , the cha ncery courterr ed i n i t s Fi ndi ngs of Fac ta nd C oncl us i ons of L aw w hen i ts t at ed, “[ A ] l l m at er i al i s s ues thatthi s C our tm us taddr es s have a l r eady be en addr es s ed by the Feder al D i st r i ctC our t . ” M i s s i s s i ppi empl oys a di f f er ents t andar d f

ors t andi ng t han fed era l cou rt s; th ere fore , the issu e o f st an d ing m u st be d eterm ined u n d er M issi ssipp i’ s
s t andar d. (1 ) W h e th e r th e H a r r iso n C o u n ty C h a n c e r y C o u r t c o m m itte d r e v e r sib le er ro r w h en it a d ju d ica ted th e issu e o f the A p p ell a n t’s stan d ing to c hal l e nge a G ul f

por t c i t y o r di nance s ol e l y o n t he bas i s of whet he r t he A ppel l ant had subm i t t ed a “ va l i d l i cens e appl i cat i on” t o t he C i t y of G u lf p o rt. ¶ 1 3
. H o tb o x x x ra ise s th e iss u e o f w h e th e r it lac k s stan d ing to c h a llen g e a n o rd in a n c e so lely on the bas i s of

an i nval i d l i cens e appl i cat i on. A l though H otboxxx ar gues i n i t s bri ef thatt he l i cens e appl i cat i on w as val i d, i tdoes notdi r ect l y br i ng the val i di ty i s s ue on appe al
. Forthe
s ake of thor oughnes s , w e f

i r s taddr es s the i s s ue of

w hetherthe l i cens e appl i cat i on i s i nval i d. T hen w e a dd r e s s the i s s ue a s s t a t e d i n Hotbo xx x’ s br i e f: w he the rH otbo xx x h a s s t a ndi ng even i f the l i cens e appl i cat i on i s i nval i d. W e conc l ude thatthe l i cens e appl i cat i on w as i ncompl et e and ther ef

or e i nval i d and thatH otboxxx acc or di ngl y l acks s t andi ng. A
. W hetherthe l i cens e appl i cat i on is i nval i d. ¶1 4
. T h e C o u rtw il l no t i n terfere w ith the fi n d ing s o f a ch an ce ll o r un less the find ing s w ere

“ mani f e s t l y wr on g, c l e a r l y e r r on e ou s , ora pp l i e d the w r on g l e ga l s t a nd a r d. ” B lu ew ater L og isti cs, L L C

v. W il li ford , 55 So. 3d 148, 166 ( M i s s . 2011) ( quot i ng P o w e ll v. Ca m p b e ll ,

### 8

9 1 2 S o . 2 d 9 7 8 , 9 8 1 (M iss . 2 0 0 5 )). T h e C h a n c e ry C o u rt o f H a rriso n C o u n ty sta ted in its F in a l Ju d g m e n t th a t it h a d “ c o n sid e re d [th e ] tes tim o n y o f p a rties a n d o th e r w itn e ss e s a s w e ll
as document ary pr oof

and evi dence and ar gum entof couns el ” and, f

ur ther , thati thad “jud g ed an d w eigh ed the c red ibil ity an d v e ra c ity o f th e w itn esse s [an d ] d o cu m en tary evi dence s ubm i t t ed” t o concl ude thatH otboxxx had nots ubm i t t ed a va l i d and pr oper app l i cat i on . T he C ou rtup ho l ds t he ch ancery co urt ’s fi nd i ng that th e p ri vil ege li cense
a p p lic a tio n w a s in c o m p le te a n d in v a lid
. ¶15. O n February 25 and 26, 2013, the chan cery co urth el d a h eari ng on the i s s ue of
w hetherthe pr i vi l ege l i cens e appl i cat i on w as val i d. A tthe hea r i ng, t es t i m ony w entback a nd f or th conce r ni ng w hi ch ver s i on of the thr ee ve r s i ons pr es ent ed w as actual l y the pr i vi l ege l i cens e appl i cat i on s ubm i t t ed t o the ci ty. A r t z cl ai m ed thatthe appl i cat i on i ntr oduced a s E xhi bi t11 w as a phot ocopy of t he appl i cat i on i ntr oduced a s E xhi bi t4, and Exhi bi t11 cont ai ned the addi t i onal pages m i s s i ng f r om E xhi bi t4. I n hi s bench rul i ng, the cha ncel l or ult i m at el y co ncluded , based o n the testi m on y an d ev i den ce, that the p ri vil ege li cense appl i cat i on m arked as E xhi bi t4 w as the ac tual appl i cat i on s ubm i t t ed t o the ci ty on Sept ember17, 2009, and Exhi bi t4 w as i ncompl et e and thus i nval i d. W e ca n di s cern no
re v e rs ib le e rr o r i n th e c h a n c e llo r’ s fi n d in g . ¶1 6. T he r ecor d cont ai ns i ns t ruct i ons f orcompl e t i ng a pr i vi l ege a ppl i cat i on. T he in stru c tio n s re a d , in p e rtin e n t p a rt: A p p lic a tio n m u s t b e s ig n e d b y o w n e r o r a u th o ri z e d a g e n t. P ri n t n a m e u n d e r s ig n a tu re . E n te r t itle o f a p p lic a n t. A ppl i cat i on m us tbe s i gned i n the pr es ence of a not ary, w ho w i l l compl et e the af f i davi ts ect i on ors i gned i n the pr es ence of an author iz ed per

s on i n the

### 9

G e n e ra l F in a n c e D e p a rtm e n t. If sig n e d in o ffic e , th e sta ff p e rso n w ill c o m p lete the af f i davi tpor t i on. ( E m phas i s added. ) E xhi bi t4 is m i ss i ng the r equi r ed s i gnatur e by the appl i cantand i s not not ar i zed orcompl et ed by a mem berof the G ener al Fi nance D epart m ent . The i ns truct i ons cl ear l y r equi r e the appl i cat i on t o be s i gned in t he pre s ence of the G ener al Fi nance D epart m entorotherw i s e not ar i zed. A r t z t es t i f i ed he di d nots i gn the appl i cat i on i n t he pr es ence of

the depart m ent , and i tw as notnot ar i zed. T hus , r egar dl es s of any di s cr epanc i es
a b o u t w h ic h e x h ib it w a s th e s u b m itte d a p p lic a tio n , th e a p p lic a tio n w a s n o t c o m p le te . B
. W hether, r egar dl es s of

the i nval i d appl i cat i on, H ot boxxx has s tandi ng. ¶17. H otboxxx ar gues thatthe det erm i nat i on of s t andi ng s houl d notbe bas ed s ol el y on t he
w hetheri ts ubm i t t ed a bus i nes s l i cens e appl i cat i on t o the C i ty of G ul f por t . H otboxxx ci t es For di ce v. B r

yan , 6 5 1 S o . 2 d 9 9 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 5 ), f orthe rul e thats t andi ng s houl d be bas ed on
w het her H otboxxx “a s s ert [ s ] a col or abl e i nt er es ti n the s ubj ectm att erof the l i t i gat i on or exper i ence [ s ] an adve r s e ef f ectf r om the conduc tof

the def endant
. . . . ” I

d. at1003. H o tb o x x x a rg u e s th a t its le a se o f th e c o m m e rc ial b u ild in g c o n stitu tes a c o lo ra b le in ter e st, g iv in g it stan d in g to c h a llen g e th e z o n in g o rd in a n c e re str ic tio n . H o tb o x x x sta tes th a t it s chos en l ocat i on fort he busi nes s i s i n vi ol at i on of the or di nance , and t her ef or e, i texper i ence d
a n a d v e rs e e ff

e c t f ro m th e e n a c tm e n t o f t h e o rd in a n c e . ¶18. T he C i ty of

G ul f por tar gues thats t andi ng r equi r es a par ty t o poi ntt o s peci f i c evi dence illu s tr a tin g a n in

ju ry in fa c t. See L u

jan v. D efe n der o

f W il dli fe , 504 U
. S. 555, 560- 61, 563 ( 1992)
. G ul f

por ts t at es thatH otboxxx di d nothave an i nj ury beca us e H otboxxx s ubm i t t ed
a n im p ro p e r ap p lica tio n ; th e re fo re , re g a rd les s o f th e O rd in a n c e , H o tb o x x x w a s n o t ab le to

### 10

engage i n the bus i nes s . G ul f por tthen ar gues thatthe col or abl e i nt er es tcl ai m s by H otboxxx do notpr ove an i nj ury beca us e they mustbe s uppor t ed ei therw i t h evidenc e f ound i n the
r ecor d orpr es ent ed attr i al , and H otboxxx’ s l eas e s t at es i ti s voi d i f i ti s unabl e t o obt ai n a l i cens e. ¶ 1 9
. S tan d in g is a ju risd ic tio n a l is s u e . Cit y of Madis on v. B r

yan , 763 So. 2d 162, 166 (M iss . 2 0 0 0 ); I

n re Cit y of B iloxi , 113 So. 3d 565, 570 ( M i s s . 2013)
. Thus, i tm ay be r ai s ed b y th e C o u rt s ua s

pont e or by any pa rty atany t i m e, and t he st and ard of r eview i s de novo
. B r yan , 7 6 3 S o . 2 d a t 1 6 6 ; I n re Cit y of B iloxi , 113 So. 3d at570. T he di s tr i ctcourtf ound a l ack of s t and i ng f

or H otboxx x to chal l eng e t he co nst i tuti on al i ty o f the o rdi nan ce bec ause H otboxxx had nots ubm i t t ed a va l i d l i cens e appl i cat i on. S ubs equent l y, i n i t s Fi nal J udgm ent af t erthe February 25- 26, 2013, he ar i ng, the chanc ery c our tf ound thatH otboxxx had f ai l ed to s u b m it a p ro p e r l ic e n s e a p p lic a tio n , a n d th e re fo re , it h a d n o s ta n d in g . ¶20
. T he S up rem e C ou rtof the U nit ed S t at es has held that “the co nst rai nts o f A rt icl e III do notappl y t o s t at e court s , a nd a ccor di ngl y the s t at e court s a r e notbound by the l i m i t at i ons of a ca s e orcontr over s y orot herfe der al rul es of j us t i ci abi l i ty even w hen they addr es s i s s ues of f eder al l aw , as w hen they ar e ca l l ed upon t o i nt erpr etthe C ons t i tut i on or. . . a f eder al
s t atut e. ” A SA R C O I

nc. v. K adish , 4 90 U
. S. 605, 617 ( 1989)
. I n M i s s i s s i ppi , s t andi ng depends on w hetherthe pl ai nt i f f as s ert s a “c ol or abl e int er es ti n the s ubj ect - m att erof t he l i t i gat i on orexper i ence [ s ] an adve r s e ef f ectfr om the conductof the def endant , oras otherw i s e pr ovi ded b y l aw . ” K inney v. Catholi c D i oces e of B iloxi , I nc. , 142 So. 3d 407, 412- 13 ( M i s s . 2014) ( quot i ng Schm idt v. Catholi c D i oces e of

B iloxi , 18 So. 3d 814, 826- 27 (M iss . 2 0 0 9 )). T h u s, w h ile s tan d in g in fe d e ra l co u rt re q u ire s a n “ in ju ry in fa c t,” s tan d in g in

### 11

M i s s i s s i ppi court s i s m or e l i ber al and r equi r es a “c ol or abl e i nt er es ti n the s ubj ectm att er . ” See K inney , 1 4 2 S o . 3 d a t 4 1 2
. ¶2 1
. T h e C o u rt h as furthe r d efine d a co lorab le interest as “w h ethe r the p arti cu lar plainti ff h a d a rig h t to ju d ici a l e n fo rc e m e n t o f a leg a l d u ty o f th e d e fe n d a n t o r . . . w h e th e r a p a rty pl ai nt i f f
. . . can s how i n hi m s el f a pr es ent , ex iste n t act i onabl e t i t l e orint er es t , and demonstr at e thatthi s r i ghtw as c om pl et e atthe t i m e of the i ns t i tut i on of

the ac t i on. ” Cit

y of P i cayune v. S. R eg’l

Cor p. , 91 6 So
. 2d 51 0, 52 6 ( M i s s . 20 05 ) ( i nt e rna l c i t a t i on om i t t ed) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); s ee al s o I n re Cit y of B iloxi , 1 1 3 S o . 3 d a t 57 0
. A n inc h o a te o r n o t fu lly d e v e lo p e d ri g h t is n o t s u ff ic ie n t. C um bes t

v. Com m is s i oners of

E lecti on of

Jacks on Co u n ty , 416 So. 2d 683, 687 ( M i s s . 1982) ( ci t i ng A m er i can B ook Co. v. V andi ver , 178 So. 5 9 8 , 5 9 9 (M is s . 1 9 3 8 ))
. ¶22. A s di s cus s ed above, H otboxx x d i d n ot s ub m i ta vali d li cense ap pli cat i on , but H otboxx x m ai ntai ns t hat i thad si gn ed a lease and clai m s i tw as f ull y regi st ered as a bu si ness
e n tity w ith a b u sin e ss p lan
. A lth o u g h H o tb o x x x m a y h a v e b e e n reg iste re d as a b u sin e ss w ith a bus i nes s pl an, the s i gned l eas e i s the onl y evi dence i n the r ecor d l i nki ng H otboxxx t o t he
z o n e o f t h e c ity a ff

e c te d b y th e o rd in a n c e . ¶2 3
. T h e C o u rt a lso h as h eld that “[A ] n y p rop erty o w n er o r p erso n h av ing an interest in pr operty w hi ch i s orm ay be a f f ect ed by a perm i torva r i ance i l l egal l y i s s ued orde ni ed i s an
a g g ri e v e d p a rt y a n d m a y a p p ly to th e c o u rt fo r r e lie f.” Belhaven I m pr ovem ent

A s s ’n, I nc.
v. Cit y of Jacks on , 507 So. 2d 41, 46 ( M i s s . 1987) ( quot i ng Mayor , etc. , Cit y of P ontotoc
v. W h ite , 93 S o. 2d 85 2, 85 6 (M i ss. 19 5 7 )). T h e leas e dated Jul y 1 4, 20 09 , for18 20 P ass R oad, G ul f

por t , M i s s i s s i ppi , atf

i r s tgl ance appea r s t o pre s entan i nt er es ti n pr operty af f ect ed

### 12

b y the o rd in a n c e . H o w e v e r, th e lea se p ro v id e s, “I n the ev e n t th a t th e L e ss o r ca n n o t o b tain th e n e c e ss a ry b u sin e ss lice n se s a n d o r a p p ro v a ls fro m th e C ity o f G u lfp o rt to o p e ra te th e ir bus i ne s s , thi s c on tr a c ts ha l l b e c ome vo i d. ” A l tho ug h H otbo xx x ha d a n i nt e r e s ti n l and
a ffe c ted b y th e o rd in a n c e , w h e n H o tb o x x x fa iled to su b m it a v a lid ap p lica tio n an d fa iled to obt ai n a l i cens e, the l eas e beca m e voi d, and H otboxxx no l ongerhad an i nt er es ti n the l and. ¶24
. T he C ou rt has st at ed: “[ S ] t and i ng m ust exis t w hen l i t i gati on i s com m enced and m ust cont i nue thr ough al l s ubs equents t ages of l i t i gat i on, orthe ca s e w i l l b ecom e m oot . ” In re Cit y of B iloxi , 113 So. 3d at572 ( emphasi s added)
. Si m i l ar l y, the C our ti n B r yan determ i ned that B ryan di d no thave st and i ng t o app eal the city’s vet o o f hi s si t e plan becau se hi s opt i on t o pur chas e the l and had e xpi r ed, and he di d nothave “ any otherencumb ra nce upon the pr operty. ” B r yan , 763 So. 2d at166. I n the i ns t antcas e, H otboxxx’ s l eas e w as pendenton obt ai ni ng t he appr opr i at e l i cens es . T he cha ncery courthel d t he appl i cat i on f or the pr i vi l ege l i cens e t o be i nval i d, and w e uphel d thatf i ndi ng. T hus , the l eas e i s voi d, and H otboxxx has no i nt er es ti n the l and, a nd ther ef or e, unde rM i s s i s s i ppi cas e l aw , no s t andi ng. ¶25. A l t ernat i vel y, H otboxxx c i t es t o the di s s enti n Boar d of Tr us te e s of

State I ns tituti ons of H i gherL earning v. V

an Sl yke , 510 So. 2d 490, 496 ( M i s s . 1987) , t o cl ai m that “M i s s i s s i ppi court s ar e abl e t o gr ants t andi ng t o part i es w ho s eek re vi ew of governm ent al act i ons . ” A l though part s of t he ar gum entm ade by Jus t i ce Pr atherw er e l at eradopt ed by the C our t , H otboxxx t akes J us t i ce Pr ather ’ s a r gum entoutof c ont ext . T he V

an Sl yke I di s s ent and the l at ermaj or i ty i n V an Sl yke v. B oar d of

T r ustees of

State I nstituti ons of

H i gher Lea r ning , 6 1 3 S o . 2 d 8 7 2 (M iss . 1 9 9 3 ), fu rth e r sta ted :

### 13

T he ar gum entper s i s t s thatci t i zens shoul d have the author i ty t o chal l enge the cons t i tut i onal i ty and/ orr evi ew of governm ent al act i on, and i f i ndi vi dual s do n o t h a v e su c h a u th o rity , h o w e lse m a y c o n stitu tio n a l c o n flicts b e ra ise d . T h is is p a rticu lar ly tru e w h e n a p u b lic o ffic ial c h a rg e d w ith su c h a d u ty fa ils to a c t. C o n sti tuti o n al li ti g ati o n b y p ri v ate cit izen s m ay b e m aintaine d in ca ses w h ere ther e i s no pr obabi l i ty [ of the val i di ty] of

the s t atut e bei ng chal l enged by one of the cl as s dis cri m i nat ed aga i ns t ; or , w hen a de ci s i on on val i di ty w oul d not be nec es s ary, one notw i thi n the cl as s m ay ques t i on the val i di ty of the s t at e. V an Sl yke II, 6 1 3 S o . 2 d a t 8 7 5 ; s ee al s o Van Sl

yke I, 51 0 S o. 2d at49 7 (Prather, J. di s s ent i ng) ( quot i ng Mil lerv. L am arL i

f e I ns. Co. , 1 3 1 S o . 2 8 2 (19 3 0 )). ¶2 6
. H e re , a p u b li c o ffi cial h as n o t fail ed to ac t; the q u esti o n is the co n sti tuti o n ali ty o f a city o rdin an ce . M o reo v er, he re, a p arty w ith an interest i n land affec ted b y the o rdin an ce ’s zoni ng regulat i ons w oul d have s t andi ng t o s ue. T he C our ti n B o a rdo f T ru ste e s o f S ta te I nstituti ons of

H i gherL earning v. R ay , 809 So. 2d 627 ( M i s s . 2002) , s i m i l ar l y l i m i t ed the g e n e ra l sta n d in g ru le, fin d in g n o c o lo ra b le in ter e st fo r sta n d in g . R ay , 809 So. 2d at632 ( “H er e, a publ i c of

f i ci al has notre f

us ed t o act ; i n fa ct , i n t hi s par t i cul arcas e ther e has been
m u ch ac ti v ity o n the p art of tho se p o li ti ca l bo d ies i n v o lved
. T h is c e rta in ly lesse n s su p p o rt fo r a llo w in g a c tio n b y u n in v o lv e d c itiz e n s .” ). T h u s , u n d e r th e in s ta n t f a c ts , V an S l yke II ’s gener al rul e thatuni nvol ved ci t i zens s houl d have the author i ty t o chal l enge the
cons t i tut i onal i ty of

governm ent al act i on d oes n othol d m uch s tr ength, and i tdoes not g e n e ra te a c o lo ra b le in te re s t f o r H o tb o x x x to a s s e rt s ta n d in g . CO NC L US I ON ¶27. D i s m i s s al w i thout pr ej udi ce by the f eder al di s tr i ct court di d not pr ecl ude the i ns t ant
cas e f r om bei ng br oughti n chanc ery court . T he cha ncel l or ’ s f i ndi ng thatthe pr i vi l ege l i cens e appl i cat i on w as i nval i d w as notc l ear l y e rr oneous ; ther ef or e, the C our tuphol ds t he

### 14

chan cel l or’ s f

i nd i ng . E v en u n d er the co l orabl e i nter estst and ard, the inval i d li cense appl i cat i on and s ubs equentvoi d l eas e do notgi ve H otboxxx a col or abl e i nt er es tt o chal l enge the const i tuti onal i ty of

the or di nance . T hus , w e af f i r m the cha ncery court ’ s hol di ng t hat H o tb o x x x d o e s n o t h a v e s ta n d in g to c h a lle n g e th e c o n s titu tio n a lity o f t h e o rd in a n c e . ¶ 2 8
. AF F I RM ED . W A LL ER , C . J. , D I C K I N SO N A N D R A N D O LP H , P. JJ . , K I TC H EN S, C H A N D L E R , P IE R C E A N D K IN G , JJ . , C O N C U R . L A M A R , J . , C O N C U R S IN P ART AND I N T HE RE S UL T W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON.