Opinion ID: 1574558
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether it was reversible error to deny Green's motion to amend his complaint.

Text: ¶ 30. Green moved to amend his complaint to say that notice of the supplemental CCN was not proper or adequate because he received no notice that a decentralized system would be used. In its order denying the motion, the Commission noted that the statutory notice requirements had been met, and stated that Green was seeking to impose a notice requirement beyond that required by statute. The chancellor treated this as a moot issue, for he already had found that the court had no jurisdiction over this matter. Since jurisdiction was proper, we consider this issue. ¶ 31. The Commission's rules do not explicitly grant the power to deny a motion to amend, but as an administrative agency in the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial powers, the Commission has that authority. Love v. Miss. State Bd. of Veterinary Exam'rs, 230 Miss. 222, 230, 92 So.2d 463, 467 (1956). Administrative agencies are, as a general rule, unrestricted by the technical or formal rules of procedure which govern trials before a court. Id. Specifically, the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure are not applicable at administrative proceedings. Miss. Real Estate Appraiser Licensing & Certification Board. v. James, 730 So.2d 1135, 1139 (Miss.1999). ¶ 32. Green cites Rule 11B(3) of the Commission's rules, alleging that the Commission violated its own rule by not notifying Green and his attorney of Green's right to amend. The rule reads as follows: Procedure. Upon the filing of such a complaint, the Commission will immediately examine the same to determine whether it alleges a prima facie case and conforms to these rules. If the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint does not allege a prima facie case or does not conform to these rules, it will notify the complainant or his attorney to that effect, and opportunity may be given to amend the complaint within a specified time. Code Miss. R. XX-XXX-XXX (2008). The rule applies to the original complaint, for which there would have been no reason to have notified Green or his attorney. Further, the rule uses permissive, not mandatory, language regarding the opportunity to amend. The remainder of Green's argument refers to alleged problems with the 2000 grant of a supplemental CCN for which the time to appeal has lapsed. As we find that the Commission did not commit reversible error in denying Green's motion to amend, the result, although for a different reason than articulated by the chancellor, is the same.