Manning et al v. Manning et al
Filing
26
ORDER allowing defendants 14 days from date of entry of Order to file an appropriate motion, and allowing further briefing as set forth therein. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 8/5/2014 (ECW)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
L.H. MANNING, VIRGINIA WARREN,
JOHN HENRY MANNING, EVA MANNING,
AND GEANNIE JONES
VS.
PLAINTIFFS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-cv-238(DCB)(MTP)
JOAN FRITSCHEN MANNING,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTRIX
OF THE ESTATE OF EDWARD RICHARD
MANNING, DECEASED, AND ROBERT
PERRY AND WIFE PAIGE PERRY
DEFENDANTS
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on the plaintiffs’ Motion
Seeking Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction and
Other Relief (hereinafter “Federal Motion for Injunctive Relief”)
(docket entry 18), and Motion for Hearing Date (docket entry 24).
The Court has reviewed the plaintiffs’ motions, the Complaint and
Answers1 in this case, the defendants’ Opposition to the Federal
Motion for Injunctive Relief, and the plaintiffs’ Response to
Defendants’ Opposition, and now finds as follows:
The plaintiffs’ Complaint was filed on December 26, 2013. The
Complaint seeks a determination of ownership of land, recovery of
land, and damages against the defendants.
The plaintiffs allege
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (amount of controversy in
1
The defendants’ original answer was filed January 27,
2014. An amended answer was filed April 18, 2014. The Court
detects no substantive changes in the amended answer, merely
clarifying language in paragraphs 1 and 22.
excess of $75,000, and complete diversity of citizenship between
the parties).
Complaint, ¶ 1.
The Complaint also recites that a
Complaint to Recover Land was filed in the Chancery Court of Pike
County, Mississippi, on August 13, 2013, bearing Cause Number 20130421, and that a Complaint for Injunctive Relief bearing Cause
Number 2013-0081 was filed in the Pike County Chancery Court, also
on August 13, 2013.
Complaint, ¶ 9.
In their Answer to the present Complaint, the defendants raise
the affirmative defenses of estoppel, laches, res judicata, statute
of frauds, and waiver.
Specifically, they allege that adversarial
proceedings were filed in the Chancery Court of Pike County by the
plaintiffs, and that the matters raised in the present Complaint
“have been resolved and/or are pending in the Chancery Court of
Pike
County,
Mississippi.”
Answer,
¶
2.
Furthermore,
the
defendants allege that the Chancery Court (1) determined there was
no fraudulent conveyance to the defendants, Answer, ¶ 5, and (2)
adjudicated that defendant Joan Marie Fritschen was the sole owner
of the land at issue.
Answer, ¶ 7.
“The doctrine of res judicata under Mississippi law bars
parties from litigating claims ‘within the scope of the judgment’
of a prior action.”
LaCroix v. Marshall County, Mississippi, 409
Fed.Appx. 794, 800 (5th Cir. 2011)(unpublished)(quoting Anderson v.
LaVere, 895 So.2d 828, 832 (Miss. 2004)).
“This includes claims
that were made or should have been made in the prior suit.”
2
Anderson, 895 So.2d at 832.
In Harrison v. Chandler-Sampson Ins.,
Inc., the Mississippi Supreme Court identified several publicpolicy purposes for the doctrine: to “avoid the expense and
vexation
attending
multiple
lawsuits;”
“conserve
judicial
resources;” and “foster reliance on judicial action by minimizing
the possibilities of inconsistent decisions.”
891 So.2d 224, 232
(Miss. 2005).
The
related
doctrine
of
collateral
estoppel,
or
issue
preclusion, “precludes relitigation of issues actually adjudicated
and essential to the judgment in prior litigation involving a party
to the first case.”
LaCroix v. Marshall County, Mississippi, 2009
WL 3246671 *6 (N.D. Miss. Sept. 30, 2009)(citing Allen v. McCurry,
449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980)).
When the plaintiffs filed their Federal Motion for Injunctive
Relief,
they
had
fair
notice
of
the
defendants’
affirmative
defenses of res judicata and collateral estoppel, as required by
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(c).
“The purpose of [requiring res judicata and
collateral estoppel to be pled] is to give the opposing party
notice of the plea of estoppel and the chance to argue, if he can,
why
the
imposition
of
an
estoppel
would
be
inappropriate.”
Blonder-Tongue Labs. v. Univ. Found., 402 U.S. 313, 350 (1971).
However,
the
plaintiffs’
only
response
to
the
defendants’
affirmative defenses is an acknowledgment by the plaintiffs that
they previously “filed a lawsuit in the Chancery Court of Pike
3
County seeking to recover the land, as well as a petition for
injunctive relief.”
See
also
Federal Motion for Injunctive Relief, p. 2.
Plaintiffs’
Response
to
Defendants’
Opposition
to
Plaintiffs’ Motion, p. 2 (acknowledging that the plaintiffs brought
a lawsuit to determine ownership of the subject property in the
Chancery Court of Pike County, Mississippi).
Res judicata and collateral estoppel have the potential of
obviating the need for a hearing on the plaintiffs’ federal motion
for injunctive relief.
See Williams v. Liberty Bank, 2008 WL
2704676 *1-2 (E.D. Mich. July 9, 2008). Therefore, the Court shall
require the parties to brief the issues of res judicata and
collateral estoppel, See LaCroix, 409 Fed.Appx. at 797, and to
address additional concerns as set forth below.
A federal court may also require, sua sponte, the parties to
brief
abstention
plaintiff’s
issues
motion
restraining order.
for
where
they
preliminary
would
potentially
injunction
or
moot
a
temporary
See, e.g., Van Tassel v. Lawrence County
Domestic Relations Section, 2009 WL 2588815 *2 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 19,
2009).
See also Nagy v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2012 WL 5409730 *2
(N.D. Tex. July 27, 2012)(federal court has responsibility to
consider question of subject matter jurisdiction, including RookerFeldman doctrine, if not raised by the parties)(citing Burge v.
Parish of St. Tammany, 187 F.3d 452, 465-66 (5th Cir. 1999) and
Giannakos v. M/V Bravo Trader, 762 F.2d 1285, 1297 (5th Cir. 1985)).
4
In Van Tassel, the district court found that the “[p]laintiffs’
federal claims [were] nothing more than an impermissible collateral
attack on ... state court orders,” and that the district court
lacked
subject
matter
jurisdiction
to
review
the
federal claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
plaintiffs’
Id.
Colorado
River abstention could also be pertinent, depending on the status
of the state court litigation.
See Application of Horler, 799
F.Supp. 1457, 1462 (S.D. N.Y. 1992).
Finally, the Court finds that the probate exception to federal
jurisdiction may apply (again, depending on the status of the state
court case). “The probate exception is a judge-made exception that
precludes
federal
proceedings.”
courts
from
interfering
with
probate
Ekhol v. T.D. Ameritrade, Inc., 2013 WL 4223128 *3
(N.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2013). See also Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S.
293, 311-12 (2006)(“[T]he probate exception reserves to state
probate
courts
the
probate
or
annulment
of
a
will
and
the
administration of a decedent’s estate; it also precludes federal
courts from endeavoring to dispose of property that is in the
custody of a state probate court.”).
The parties have only vaguely informed the Court of the nature
of the relief they seek and why they should be entitled to it.
Before the Court can assess the merits of either side’s case, the
parties must brief the issues raised by the Court to the extent
they are pertinent.
Furthermore, the parties must provide the
5
Court with the entirety of the state court complaint and answer;
any state trial court judgments; any appellate state court rulings;
and any portions of the state court record, trial or appellate,
which either side deems relevant to the issues before this Court.
All of the above should be authenticated so that the Court may take
judicial notice of the pertinent record.
The defendants shall therefore be allowed to file a motion to
dismiss or other appropriate motion, within fourteen (14) days from
the date of entry of this Order.
Responsive and rebuttal briefs
shall be filed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court.
The plaintiffs shall
also be allowed, at the time they file their responsive brief, to
supplement their brief in support of their Federal Motion for
Injunctive Relief, and any further responsive and rebuttal briefs
shall be filed in accordance with the aforementioned rules.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendants are allowed fourteen
(14) days from the date of entry of this Order to file an
appropriate motion as set forth herein, and further briefing shall
be allowed, also as set forth herein.
SO ORDERED, this the 5th day of August, 2014.
/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?