Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Glass v. City of Gulfport

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

November 13, 2018

REBECCA PATE GLASS APPELLANT
v.
CITY OF GULFPORT, MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

          DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/10/2017

          HARRISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT HON. CHRISTOPHER LOUIS SCHMIDT TRIAL JUDGE.TRIAL.

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: MICHAEL W. CROSBY

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: JEFFREY S. BRUNI

          BEFORE GRIFFIS, P.J., BARNES AND CARLTON, JJ.

          GRIFFIS, P.J.

         ¶1. Rebecca Pate Glass appeals the circuit court's dismissal of her case for failure to prosecute pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d). We find no error and affirm.

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         ¶2. On January 22, 2015, Glass filed a complaint in the Harrison County Circuit Court and asserted state- and federal-law claims related to the City of Gulfport's alleged negligent operation and maintenance of a drainage system. The City removed the case to federal court, which ultimately dismissed Glass's federal-law claims and remanded the case back to the circuit court on July 7, 2015.

         ¶3. On July 14, 2015, the City filed a motion to dismiss all remaining claims.[1] Ten days later, on July 24, 2015, Glass filed a "Motion for [an] Extra Ten Days" to respond to the City's motion to dismiss. No order was ever entered on Glass's motion. It is undisputed that Glass never set her motion for a hearing and did not file her response within the requested ten days.

         ¶4. Approximately 550 days later, on February 1, 2017, the circuit clerk filed a clerk's motion to dismiss for want of prosecution. Notice of the motion was sent to both parties. Glass was advised that her case would be dismissed "unless within [t]hirty (30) [d]ays from the date of th[e] notice, action of record [wa]s taken or written application [wa]s made to the court and good cause shown why such case should not be dismissed."

         ¶5. On February 3, 2017, Glass filed a response to the clerk's motion to dismiss for want of prosecution and asserted the following:

1. The [c]lerk's [m]otion to [d]ismiss was filed on February 1, 2017.
2. There remains a pending [m]otion to [d]ismiss filed by ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.