Safechoice, Inc. v. City of McComb, Mississippi ( 2012 )

Serial: 190399
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
No. 2013-IA-00040-SCT
SAFECHOICE, INC. Appellant
v.
THE CITY OF MCCOMB, MISSISSIPPI Appellee
ORDER
Before the en banc Court is Safechoice, Inc.’s interlocutory appeal from the December
18, 2012, order of the County Court of Pike County, Mississippi, denying its “Motion for
Summary Judgment.” In its petition for interlocutory appeal, Safechoice presented two
issues:
(I) Whether SafeChoice, a foreign corporation, is able to defend this action
filed by McComb and to pursue compulsory counterclaims against
McComb, despite not having obtained a Certificate of Authority from
the Secretary of State to conduct business in the State of Mississippi?
(II) Whether the Court’s overruling of SafeChoice’s Motion for Summary
Judgment and failure to consider Request for Admission Number 4
admitted was proper?
After further review, the record reveals that the county court’s December 18 order did
not dismiss Safechoice’s counterclaims. As there is no order dismissing those claims, issue
I is not properly before the Court.
Issue II asks this Court to address a matter of discovery on interlocutory appeal. “This
Court has a history of applying strict standards for interlocutory appeals” such that “[r]arely
will we entertain an interlocutory appeal regarding a discovery matter.” Blossom v. Blossom,
66 So. 3d 124, 126-27 (Miss. 2011) (quoting Miss. State Bar v. Attorney L., 511 So. 2d 119,
121 (Miss.1987)). After reviewing the record and briefs presented by the parties, and in the
absence of addressing issue I, we find that this interlocutory appeal does not warrant
consideration of issue II. Accordingly, the interlocutory appeal is dismissed, with costs
assessed to Safechoice, Inc.
SO ORDERED, this the 1 st day of May, 2014.
/s/ Michael K. Randolph
MICHAEL K. RANDOLPH,
PRESIDING JUSTICE
FOR THE COURT
TO AGREE: ALL JUSTICES
2