Opinion ID: 2493631
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 28

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in denying Dedeaux's request for declaratory judgment on its equal-protection claim.

Text: ¶ 87. On April 30, 2008, Dedeaux filed a Combined Motion to Dismiss on Grounds of Unequal Protection asserting that Gulfport had treated Dedeaux substantially different[ly] than similarly situated utility companies in determining just compensation after exercising its power of eminent domain.... [23] Dedeaux I provided that Gulfport paid Orange Grove $33,800,000 ($3,157.40 per customer for 10,705 customers) for its property and offered Dedeaux only $2,140,000 ($773.63 per customer for 2,763 customers). Dedeaux I, 938 So.2d at 845. In support of the motion, Elliott provided an affidavit that on December 3, 1996, the water and sewer systems of Dedeaux and Orange Grove Utilities were very similar in that both... were designed to suburban utility system standards. The motion also included the pre-first trial hearing testimony of Samuel Albritton, a former Gulfport councilman, which indicated that the disparity of treatment between Dedeaux and Orange Grove was based on political reasons, i.e., spending as much money on Dedeaux as they spent on Orange Grove would have lessened city officials' chances of being re-elected. Id. ¶ 88. The trial court denied Dedeaux's motion as procedurally untimely under Uniform Circuit and County Court Rule 4.03, [24] yet also substantively found glaring differences between Dedeaux and Orange Grove Utilities. According to the trial judge, Orange Grove Utilities serves nearly four times more customers, covers a somewhat different area, and there was no agreement by Gulfport to treat the utilities the same. In sum, the trial judge stated that [t]here's just too many differences for the [c]ourt to believe that the differential in payment-per-customer alone is a violation under ... the equal protection clause.... ¶ 89. This Court has stated that [a] state may confer benefits on some and not others under equal protection, `so long as its decision is rational.' Mosby v. Moore, 716 So.2d 551, 555 (Miss.1988) (quoting Westbrook v. City of Jackson, 665 So.2d 833, 838 (Miss.1995)). [P]rotecting the public treasury is a legitimate legislative purpose. Mosby, 716 So.2d at 556 (citation omitted). While the difference in proposed payment-per-customer by Gulfport to Dedeaux and Orange Grove Utilities might seem significant, in light of the noted differences between those utilities, this Court cannot conclude that the trial court erred in denying Dedeaux's equal-protection claim. Accordingly, this issue is without merit.