Issaquena and Warren Counties Land Company, LLC et al v. Warren County, Mississippi Board of Supervisors et al

Filing 563

ORDER. Because all motions by Defendants with regard to discovery and to amend their answer and counterclaims have now been resolved, this matter is in a posture for the Plaintiffs to bring forth those defenses to the new claims reserved to them in this Court's Order 504 .Thus,the Plaintiffs are directed to raise these defenses by a dispositive motion within twenty-one days from this date. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 3/5/12 (dtj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ISSAQUENA AND WARREN COUNTIES
LAND COMPANY, LLC.,ET AL
VS

PLAINTIFFS

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:07-cv-106-DCB-JMR

WARREN COUNTY , MISSISSIPPI
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, et al

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

This action was filed by Plaintiffs on May 18, 2007. In their Complaint [1], Plaintiffs allege that
actions taken by the Defendants violated their rights under the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments. Plaintiffs also assert a civil RICO claim, a civil conspiracy claim, abuse of process and
malicious prosecution against all Defendants. In Count 10, Plaintiffs allege Misuse of Public Funds
against Defendants McDonald, Banks, Selmon, Flanders, George and Johnson.
These allegations stem from a prior action filed in Chancery Court of Warren County,
Mississippi. In that action, Paw Paw Defendants in this case asserted ownership of a prescriptive
easement over a road, a parking area and a boat launch located on the property owned by Plaintiff
Issaquena and Warren County Land Company, LLC (“IWCLC”) and allegedly used by Paw Paw’s
predecessors in title. In that same action, the Warren County Defendants asserted that the same road
was a public road. On September 12, 2008, the Chancery Court determined that the Paw Paw
Defendants did not have a prescriptive easement and that the portion of the road on IWCLC property
was not public.

1

On September 15, 2009, this Court stayed this matter by Order [488] in deference to a
determination by the Mississippi Supreme Court on the appeals filed by Paw Paw and Warren County
Defendants. In a unanimous decision dated November 10, 2010, the Mississippi Supreme Court
affirmed the Chancellor’s findings. Paw Paw Island Land, Co. v. Issaquena & Warren Cntys. Land Co.,
917 So. 3d 916 (Miss. 2010), reh’g denied, Feb. 3, 2011.
A hearing was held on September 7, 2011, before Judges Bramlette and Roper , wherein the
parties were asked to present and argue their relative positions regarding pending discovery and
dispositive motions. On December 7, 2011, the District Court entered an Order [540] ruling on these
various motions. Among its findings, the Court granted Defendant Paw Paw Island Land Co.’s Motions
to Supplement or Amend Pleadings [493] and Second Motion to Amend Pleadings [534] allowing it
to bring several new claims: (1) a right to easement by necessity, (2) a right to private condemnation
of a permanent easement over a private road, and (3) an affirmative defense based on the NoerrPennington Doctrine. However, in its ruling, the Court noted that granting these motions in no way
precluded the Plaintiffs from asserting any defenses regarding jurisdiction, res judicata, statute of
limitations, comity or any other relevant issue with regard to these new claims.
On December 14, 2011, Defendant Paw Paw Island Land Co. Filed its First Amended Answer
and Counterclaim [542] asserting both the easement by necessity and private condemnation
counterclaims. On that same date, Defendant Lindigrin filed his First Amended Answer and
Counterclaim [541] asserting his Noerr-Pennington doctrine counterclaim. The Plaintiffs filed their
Answer [551] to these filings on January 6, 2012.
On December 14, 2011, Defendant Paw Paw Island Land Co. Filed a Motion to Amend First
Amended Answer and Counterclaim[543] to include two additional counts of easement by express grant
2

and easement by prior use or quasi-easement. After full briefing, that Motion was granted on February
29, 2012.
Because all motions by Defendants with regard to discovery and to amend their answer and
counterclaims have now been resolved, this matter is in a posture for the Plaintiffs to bring forth those
defenses to the new claims reserved to them in this Court’s Order [540]. Thus, the Plaintiffs are directed
to raise these defenses by a dispositive motion within twenty-one days from this date. It is the desire
of the Court to resolve the entire case as soon as possible. This Order seeks to expedite this process.
SO ORDERED, this the

5th

day of March, 2012.

s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3