Daniel S. Fillingame v. Mississippi Insurance Department ( 2016 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2014-SA-01830-COA
DANIEL S. FILLINGAME APPELLANT
v.
MISSISSIPPI STATE FIRE ACADEMY, A APPELLEES
DIVISION OF MISSISSIPPI INSURANCE
DEPARTMENT, STATE OF MISSISSIPPI,
REGGIE BELL AND DANIEL CROSS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/11/2014
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JEFF WEILL SR.
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: DANIEL S. FILLINGAME (PRO SE)
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: JAMES T. METZ
DONALD L. KILGORE
JOHN R. HENRY JR.
ALAN M. PURDIE
LEE DAVIS THAMES JR.
BRANDON LEE WHITE
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - CONTRACT
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: LAWSUIT DISMISSED
DISPOSITION: APPEAL DISMISSED - 09/06/2016
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE ISHEE, P.J., CARLTON AND JAMES, JJ.
JAMES, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Daniel Fillingame appeals from the circuit court’s order granting a joint motion to
dismiss filed by the Mississippi State Fire Academy, a division of the Mississippi Insurance
Department of the State of Mississippi (“Academy”); Reggie Bell, the Academy’s executive
director; and Daniel Cross, the Academy’s instructor chief (collectively, “Defendants”). The
circuit court determined that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case with
prejudice.
¶2. We find that the circuit court correctly concluded that it lacked subject-matter
jurisdiction. However, we find that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction because Fillingame
did not exhaust his administrative remedies before seeking relief from the circuit court. We
dismiss this case without prejudice so that Fillingame may seek administrative relief, if he
desires.1
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶3. Fillingame first enrolled in the Academy’s firefighter-training program in 2006.
Fillingame withdrew from the program on five occasions for medical reasons and an
additional occasion for failing a course. On February 13, 2009, Fillingame filed a complaint
(Fillingame I) in the Hinds County Circuit Court against the Academy, after the Academy
refused to allow him to re-enroll for a seventh time in the program. Fillingame’s complaint
alleged wrongful termination; negligence and gross negligence; breach of contract and
tortious breach of contract; negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress; and
slander and defamation.
¶4. On December 30, 2010, the circuit court dismissed Fillingame’s tort claims.
However, the circuit court found that Fillingame was entitled to a judgment as a matter of
law on his breach-of-contract claim. The circuit court found that Fillingame had an implied
1
Whether the statute of limitations bars Fillingame’s grievance under the Mississippi
Fire Personnel Board’s administrative rules and regulations is not an issue before this Court.
That issue will need to be determined if Fillingame pursues administrative relief.
2
contractual right to return to the program because the Academy’s policy was to permit a
trainee to re-enroll after a medical withdrawal. The circuit court ordered specific
performance of the implied contract, i.e., required the Academy to allow Fillingame to re-
enroll. In accordance with the court order, Fillingame re-enrolled and returned to the
Academy on April 4, 2011, to complete his last week of the program.
¶5. After Fillingame completed his training, the Academy issued him a certificate on
April 12, 2011. The certificate provided that Fillingame had completed the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) Firefighter 1001 Standard, Levels I and II (2002 Edition).
Because Fillingame was unsatisfied with the type of certificate issued, he filed a motion to
impose remedial sanctions for contempt of court and for an award of monetary and
consequential damages on January 25, 2012.
¶6. Fillingame argued that the Academy was in contempt of the January 2011 order that
compelled the Academy to permit him to re-enroll. Although Fillingame conceded that the
Academy allowed him to re-enroll, he claimed the Academy failed to act in good faith
because the Academy’s contractual duty to re-enroll him carried the obligation to issue
proper credentials upon the completion of the training. He claimed that the Academy
certifying him under the 2002 edition, rather than the 2008 edition, was improper and
constituted a breach of the implied contract.
¶7. On September 12, 2012, the circuit court entered an order denying Fillingame’s
contempt motion. Fillingame appealed and, on June 30, 2015, this Court affirmed the circuit
court’s order denying Fillingame’s motion for contempt. Fillingame v. State (Fillingame I),
3
187 So. 3d 155, 159 (¶19) (Miss. Ct. App. 2015).
¶8. In Fillingame I, this Court explained the significance of the type of certificate issued
to Fillingame:
Because Fillingame began his training in 2006, when the NFPA 2002 standard
edition was in place, the Academy certified him as having completed that
edition. But according to Fillingame, after he failed a course in late 2007, he
had to start his training all over again when he re-enrolled in spring 2008. And
by this time, he claims, the Academy had implemented the 2008 edition of the
NFPA 1001 Standard – an assertion the Academy denies.
What particular edition—2002 versus 2008—Fillingame completed impacts
his ability to apply for certification with the Mississippi Fire Personnel
Minimum Standards and Certification Board (MSCB). To be certified by the
MSCB as having met the minimum training standards for a full-time
professional firefighter, Fillingame would need not only a certificate from the
Academy stating he completed the NFPA 1001 Standard, Levels I and II, but
also the certificate must have a seal of accreditation from the International Fire
Service Accreditation Congress (IFSAC), an independent non-profit
organization based in Oklahoma. Miss. Code Ann. § 45-11-203 (Rev. 2011);
Miss. Admin. Code 19–101:1.07. Fillingame’s certificate received no seal
because, by April 2011, the IFSAC was no longer accrediting the 2002 edition
of the NFPA 1001 Standard.
Id. at 157 (¶¶7-8).
¶9. While Fillingame I was pending on appeal in this Court, Fillingame filed a second
complaint (Fillingame II) in the Hinds County Circuit Court against the Academy, Bell,
Cross, and the State of Mississippi on April 11, 2014. The Fillingame II complaint alleged
breach of contract; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; negligent
misrepresentation; compensatory damages; exemplary damages; and attorney’s fees and
costs.
¶10. On April 28, 2014, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for
4
summary judgment. The circuit court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The circuit
court stated that the allegations in Fillingame II were the same allegations that were raised
in the contempt action in Fillingame I. The circuit court concluded that it did not have
subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case with prejudice. On December 30, 2014,
Fillingame filed his notice of appeal.
¶11. On appeal, Fillingame argues that the circuit court erred by (1) dismissing the case for
lack of jurisdiction, and (2) ignoring viable claims against the Defendants. Our opinion is
limited to the jurisdictional issue as we find it is dispositive.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶12. “The determination of whether jurisdiction over a particular matter is proper is a
question of law; therefore, this Court must apply a de novo standard of review to this issue.”
Winding v. State, 908 So. 2d 163, 165 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (citing Sanderson Farms
Inc. v. Gatlin, 848 So. 2d 828, 841 (¶38) (Miss. 2003)).
DISCUSSION
¶13. The Defendants argue that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction because Fillingame
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Fillingame argues that the Defendants waived
the argument for lack of jurisdiction because it has been raised for the first time on appeal.
However, lack of jurisdiction may be raised for the first time on appeal. Williams v. Michael,
319 So. 2d 226, 227 (Miss. 1975). It is well settled that “[a] complainant must exhaust the
administrative remedies available to him before resorting to the courts for resolution of his
dispute.” State v. Beebe, 687 So. 2d 702, 704 (Miss. 1996).
5
¶14. In Fillingame I, we determined that “Fillingame's real grievance ha[d] to do with the
certificate the Academy issued him at the end of his training.” Fillingame I, 187 So. 3d at
156 (¶2). Furthermore, “the [circuit] court’s order directing the Academy to re-enroll him
did not mandate the type of certificate he would receive. Id. Rather, this was a later-made
administrative decision by the Academy, for which Fillingame could not seek circuit court
review by simply filing for contempt.” Id. For this reason, we held:
[T]he type of certificate Fillingame should have received upon completion of
his training was not a matter of contract law that could be resolved by going
back to the 2009 breach-of-contract action. It was instead an administrative
decision, which the Legislature expressly conferred upon the Academy. Miss.
Code Ann. § 45-11-7(6) (Rev. 2011) (requiring the Academy to “present an
appropriate certificate signifying the successful completion of its prescribed
courses”).
While agency decisions may be subject to judicial review, the procedural
posture of this case is not an appeal of an agency’s decision, filed after the
exhaustion of administrative remedies. Rather, Fillingame filed a motion for
contempt, seeking to enforce a court order entered before the Academy even
made the decision to certify Fillingame under the 2002 standards.
We thus find any grievance Fillingame may have with his certificate is a
separate administrative issue completely outside the circuit court’s January
2011 order. So Fillingame could not use his motion for contempt, based on
that order, to prompt judicial review of the Academy’s decision. For this
additional reason, we find the judge properly denied the motion for contempt.
Id. at 158-59 (¶¶16-18).
¶15. Fillingame claims that he does not have any administrative remedies to exhaust. We
disagree. Under Mississippi Code Annotated section 45-11-253 (Rev. 2015), the Mississippi
Fire Personnel Board (MFPB) is tasked with promulgating the administrative rules and
regulations for minimum standards and certifications for firefighter training. Rule 1.14 of
6
the Rules and Regulations for Minimum Standards Certification outlines the appeals process
relating to any certification issue:
Appeals to any certification issue shall be made to the Board and submitted
within one (1) year of the date of the original action. Such appeals may be
initiated by an individual or through the executive fire officer of the local fire
fighting unit. Once a written appeal has been filed, the individual may petition
the Board in person at a regularly scheduled meeting of the MSCB. Upon
hearing the basis of the appeal, the chair may forward the appeal to [the]
appropriate committee for further investigation and a recommendation for
action. The Board will communicate its final decision in writing within thirty
(30) days following any action taken on the issue.
¶16. In lieu of seeking administrative relief under Rule 1.14, Fillingame filed a contempt
action in Fillingame I, which was denied and ultimately affirmed by this Court on appeal.
¶17. Fillingame claims that his contempt action in Fillingame I differs from Fillingame II,
because the contempt action in Fillingame I was based on the certificate he was issued,
whereas here his claim is relative to being placed in an “obsolete NFPA (2002 [edition])
firefighter training course.” Fillingame claims that the Defendants led him to believe that
he was enrolled in the 2008 edition NFPA firefighter training and did not realize he was
placed in the 2002 edition NFPA firefighter training until he completed his training in April
2011.
¶18. Although Fillingame frames the issue as strictly dealing with what training program
he completed, his grievance is ultimately based on his certificate being eligible for a seal of
accreditation from IFSAC. Nonetheless, the Academy’s decision to place him in the 2002
edition NFPA program was an administrative decision.
¶19. “It is the intent of the Legislature to require and provide minimum standards for
7
training and to declare that the State Fire Academy is the principal facility for such
purposes.” Miss. Code Ann. § 45-11-201 (Rev. 2015). The Academy’s decision to certify
Fillingame under the 2002 edition was an administrative decision. Like we held in
Fillingame I, Fillingame’s dispute is based on an administrative decision for which he must
exhaust his administrative remedies before resorting to the courts for relief.
CONCLUSION
¶20. The circuit court correctly found that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. We find
that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction because Fillingame failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies before resorting to the circuit court for relief. We dismiss the case
without prejudice so that Fillingame may proceed administratively, if he desires.
¶21. THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. ALL COSTS
OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
LEE, C.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., ISHEE, CARLTON, FAIR, WILSON
AND GREENLEE, JJ., CONCUR. BARNES, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
8