Case Name: Rosia M. Williams v. Roger W. Jones et al.
Court: Richmond Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1996-02-13
Citations: 38 Va. Cir. 356
Docket Number: Case No. LX-3062-4
Parties: Rosia M. Williams v. Roger W. Jones et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Circuit Court Opinions
Volume: 38
Pages: 356–357

Head Matter:
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
Rosia M. Williams v. Roger W. Jones et al.
February 13, 1996
Case No. LX-3062-4

Opinion:
By Judge Randall G. Johnson
At the conclusion of the hearing on Monday, I ruled that plaintiff could take a voluntary nonsuit against Dr. Matthews even though Dr. Matthews has filed a cross-claim against Williamsburg Community Hospital and even though Va. Code § 8.01-380 states that a nonsuit will not be allowed when a cross-claim has been filed unless the cross-claimant agrees or unless the cross-claim can remain pending for independent adjudication by the court. In making that ruling, I stated that to hold otherwise in light of the nature of Dr. Matthews' cross-claim in this case makes no sense; that is, that since Dr. Matthews' cross-claim seeks only indemnification from Williamsburg Community Hospital, he could suffer no prejudice by being nonsuited even if his cross-claim is consequently dismissed. While I still feel that it makes no sense not to allow a nonsuit under these circumstances, I must apply the law as written.
In Moore v. Gillis, 239 Va. 239, 389 S.E.2d 453 (1990), a trial court (yours truly) was reminded that clear and unambiguous laws are to be applied as they read, not as a judge believes they should read. Specifically, the Supreme Court said:
If statutory language "is clear and unambiguous, there is no need for construction by the court; the plain meaning and intent of the enactment will be given it." Brown v. Lukhard, 229 Va. 316, 321, 330 S.E.2d 84, 87 (1985). "When an enactment is clear and unequivocal, general rules of construction of statutes of doubtful meaning do not apply." Id.
239 Va. at 241.
In the case at bar, Virginia Code § 8.01-380 is clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal: "A parly shall not be allowed to nonsuit a cause of action, without consent of the adverse party who has filed a . . cross-claim . . . which arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the claim of the party desiring to nonsuit unless the... cross-claim... can remain pending for independent adjudication by the court." Emphasis added. The conditions allowing a nonsuit are not present. The nonsuit cannot be allowed. See also Iliff v. Richards, 221 Va. 644, 272 S.E.2d 645 (1980).