Opinion ID: 1688092
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether the Circuit Court of Hancock County, Mississippi erred in denying the Mississippi Transportation Commission's Motion for Leave to File Third-Party Complaint.

Text: ¶ 34. Finally, the Commission relies upon Rule 14 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure for its position that the lower court committed reversible error by denying its motion for leave to file third-party complaint against certain utility companies. Both parties direct the Court's attention to Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Wells, 593 So.2d 1010, 1012-13 (Miss.1992). Relying on the comments to Miss. R. Civ. P. 14, the Court recognized that the trial court has discretion to disallow a claim even if it meets the technical requirements of the rule. Id. The Court also noted, It is apparent that the rule does not grant a defendant the right to have a third party claim heard by the court in the same action. The Mississippi trial courts have greater discretion on Rule 14 than the federal courts have. Id. at 1012. ¶ 35. The Commission argues that since SCI's claims are solely related to the location and non-removal of the utility conflicts owned by parties other than the Commission, the third-party utility companies would have been liable to the Commission for all or part of the judgment against it. The Commission argues that allowing it to add the utility companies would have prevented needless additional litigation, thus satisfying the rule's purpose of avoiding circuitous or duplicative actions. ¶ 36. The circuit court found that, The Mississippi Transportation Commission has taken no steps whatsoever, to expeditiously resolve this action, although it noted in its argument that time was of the essence in completing the project in question. As the commentary to Rule 14 states, ... a valid third-party claim that will avoid circuitous or duplicative actions should ordinarily be permitted, unless it would unduly delay the original action. If the court determines that the third-party claim would unduly complicate the original action, it should not disallow impleader; instead, it should permit the claim and order a separate trial as authorized by the rule and by Rule 42(a). Miss. R. Civ. P. 14 cmt. ¶ 37. Once again, we defer to the discretion of the circuit court below because it was in the best position to determine whether the third party claim was appropriate. Given the court's determination that the Commission had already delayed the action long enough and that further delay would be prejudicial to SCI, we find that the court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow the Commission to file a third-party complaint.