Opinion ID: 864341
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the trial court erred in dismissing

Text: MODENER'S STATE LAW CLAIMS. ¶88. Although the majority correctly finds that the plaintiff's state law claims, specifically those falling under the MTCA, should be reversed and remanded to the trial court, it fails to go further under our de novo review and address the true issue – whether the plaintiff has substantially complied with the notice provision of the MTCA. ¶89. The plaintiff specifically listed her state law claims separately in her amended complaint. The plaintiff also served a notice letter upon the Mayor during the requisite time limitation provided for in the MTCA. Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-11. Although, the plaintiff did not specifically mention in the letter that the state law claims were pursuant to the MTCA, such an omission does not support a finding of no notice. As we have repeatedly found, all that is required under the notice statute is substantial compliance, which has clearly been shown here. Powell v. City of Pascagoula, 752 So.2d 999 (Miss. 1999); Ferrer v. Jackson County Bd. of Supvrs., 741 So.2d 216 (Miss. 1999); City of Pascagoula v. Tomlinson, 741 So.2d 224 (Miss. 1999); Tennessee Valley Reg'l Hous. Auth. v. Bailey, 740 So.2d 869 (Miss. 1999); Reaves ex re. Rouse v. Randall, 729 So.2d 1237 (Miss. 1998). 47 ¶90. Summary judgment was not appropriate with regard to any of the claims asserted by the plaintiff. More extensive discovery is needed before any such finding can be made. For the above-stated reasons, I respectfully dissent. 48