EDMOND L. LINDSEY APPELLANT
FORD MOTOR COMPANY AND COUNTRY FORD APPELLEES
OF JUDGMENT: 05/23/2017
FROM WHICH APPEALED: DESOTO COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT TRIAL JUDGE:
HON. CELESTE EMBREY WILSON
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: EDMOND L. LINDSEY (PRO SE)
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: D. STERLING KIDD WILLIAM ALBERT
BROWN WILLIAM TYLER SCOTT
GRIFFIS, P.J., BARNES AND WILSON, JJ.
Edmond Lindsey sued Ford Motor Company and Country Ford,
alleging that he was sold a defective vehicle and was
entitled to a full refund of the purchase price. Lindsey
failed to provide support for his claim, and the circuit
court granted summary judgment to the defendants. Finding
summary judgment was appropriately granted, we affirm.
According to Lindsey's pro se complaint filed on August
13, 2012, in the DeSoto County Circuit Court, he went to
Country Ford in Southaven, Mississippi, on April 4, 2012, to
purchase a red 2012 Ford Focus hatchback. Country Ford did
not have one in stock; so the salesperson offered to order
one. The salesperson then offered to let Lindsey test drive a
similar model, a white 2012 Ford Focus, that he found
"in the shop." After the test drive, Lindsey's
wife expressed interest in the white Ford Focus and asked,
"[W]hat's wrong with this car?" Lindsey asserts
that the salesperson did not respond to her question but
offered them the vehicle for $1, 000 less than the red Focus,
and Lindsey purchased it.
Lindsey alleged that he returned to Country Ford
approximately two weeks later on April 19, 2012, and
complained to a service technician that the vehicle was
"jerking, coasting, stalling, rolling backwards after
stopping and taking off again" and that
"[a]pplication of the brakes periodically influence[d]
the direction of the car." According to Lindsey, the
technician responded, "[T]here is nothing wrong with the
car[;] they all do that." Lindsey claimed that a sales
manager stated he was going to drive the car, but he declined
to do so after speaking with the service technician. The
sales manager, Terry Pierce, disputed this claim, stating
through an affidavit that Lindsey refused to accompany him on
the test drive and left the dealership. Lindsey stated that
before leaving the dealership, he asked for his money back,
but the sales manager refused. Lindsey alleged that he later
discovered that the vehicle, which had been represented as
new, had been previously titled in Mississippi. In his
complaint, Lindsey alleged breach of warranty, and he sought
a full refund of the vehicle's purchase price plus
damages and court costs.
Discovery proceeded, and various motions were filed
intermittently during the next four years. At one point, in
May 2016, the circuit clerk moved for dismissal of the case
for failure to prosecute. On December 29, 2016, Ford Motor
Company moved for summary judgment. After a hearing, its
motion was granted. On April 27, 2017, Country Ford moved for
summary judgment. The next day, Lindsey moved to amend his
complaint to add additional claims against Country Ford. He
also filed motions to compel additional discovery and for the
recusal of the circuit court judge. All of Lindsey's
motions were denied. After a hearing, the circuit court
granted Country Ford's motion for summary judgment.
Lindsey's motion for reconsideration of the orders
granting summary judgment was denied. Lindsey appeals.
Summary judgment is proper when, viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party, "the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,
show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law." M.R.C.P. 56(c); Karpinsky v. Am.
Nat'l Ins. Co., 109 So.3d 84, 88 (¶9) (Miss.
2013). To rebut a motion for summary judgment, the nonmovant
may not "rest upon the mere allegations or denials of
his pleadings . . . ." M.R.C.P. 56(e). Rather, the
nonmovant must respond "by affidavit or as otherwise
provided in [Rule 56]," and he "must set forth
specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for
trial." Karpinsky, 109 So.3d at 88 (¶10).
We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. Id.
Rulings on motions for leave to amend a complaint and
discovery-related motions are reviewed for abuse of
discretion. Elliott v. AmeriGas Propane L.P., 249
So.3d 389, 398 (¶38) (Miss. 2018).