Opinion ID: 1917642
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: whether the circuit court committed error in dismissing randell's case based on miss. r. civ. p. 41.

Text: ¶ 6. In the interest of brevity and clarity, this Court will discuss Issues I and III together. Two suits were filed by Randell's father, on Randell's behalf, against Donald. Both were dismissed for failure to properly serve process on Donald. The first suit was also dismissed under Miss. R. Civ. P. 41(b) because Randell's attorney failed to qualify pro hac vice. ¶ 7. Randell argues that these dismissals were without prejudice and do not bar his third suit against Donald. However, Donald argues that a dismissal under Miss. R. Civ. P. 41(b) is with prejudice and operates as an adjudication upon the merits citing the comment to Miss. R. Civ. P. 41. ¶ 8. In Taylor v. General Motors Corp., 717 So.2d 747 (Miss.1998) ( Taylor I ), this Court specifically stated that the dismissal under Rule 41(b) was without prejudice as to the claim of Randell, a minor. However, the dismissal is without prejudice as to the claim of Taylor's minor son, against whom the statute of limitations, pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 15-1-59 (1995), does not begin to run until the son attains his twenty first birthday. The minor's claim remains viable for this time period should a determination be made to pursue the same. Id. at 750.