Opinion ID: 1146093
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the circuit court violated the plaintiffs' rights under article 3 sections 14 and 24 of the mississippi constitution and the fourteenth amendment of the united states constitution.

Text: ¶ 13. Coleman also argues the circuit judge's dismissal violates their due process rights under Article 3, Section 14 of the Constitution of this state as well as the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Citing Garrett v. Gay, 394 So.2d 321, 322-23 (Miss.1981), Coleman argues that his personal injury claims are property rights and dismissal had caused him to suffer the loss of these rights. However, Coleman does not cite to any cases in support of his position that, by retroactive application of the amended Rule 20 and emerging case law, his rights to due process have been violated. Nor does Coleman offer support for his statement that neither he nor the other 158 Joint Appellants can ever file a claim in another court based upon the facts in this case. ¶ 14. Coleman has not yet demonstrated that he was been deprived of his property interest in his lawsuit. While the suit may have been dismissed without prejudice from a Mississippi court, neither Coleman nor the other 158 Joint Appellants have shown that they have attempted to file in another jurisdiction and been barred from doing so. Therefore, we do not know if there has been a deprivation. ¶ 15. Despite Coleman's arguments to the contrary, there was ample due process. Indeed, counsel for Coleman extensively briefed the trial court on the merits of their argument. They also received the benefit of three separate hearings before the trial judge regarding the various intricacies of the case; one on October 15, 2004, one on February 7, 2005, and one on March 28, 2005. Even if Coleman demonstrated a deprivation, this was more than sufficient due process. We find that this argument is without merit.