Civil Action No. 2:14-CV-9-KS-MTP.


United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Eastern Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs
Source: PACER

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Joseph Edward Parker, Plaintiff, represented by Michael R. Martz , FREELAND MARTZ, PLLC.

Leaf River Cellulose, LLC, Defendant, represented by William T. Siler, Jr. , PHELPS DUNBAR, LLP & Gregory Todd Butler , PHELPS DUNBAR, LLP.


KEITH STARRETT, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the Motion In Limine Regarding Punitive Damages Evidence ("Motion on Punitive Damages) [90] and the Motion In Limine to Exclude Evidence Regarding Special Damages ("Motion on Special Damages") [92] filed by Defendant Leaf River Cellulose, LLC ("Defendant"). After considering the submissions of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds that neither motion is well taken and both should be denied.


A. Motion on Punitive Damages [90]

Much of Defendant's arguments for the exclusion of punitive damages in this case were addressed in its previous motion for summary judgment and are premised on the fact that no court has ever interpreted § 45-9-55(2) before. However, as the Court noted in a previous Order [88], "[t]he only reasonable reading of the language of the statute is the one adopted by this Court. This reading further comported with the legislative history behind the statute." (Order [88] at p. 4.) Though the Court may have employed certain interpretative tools to further articulate the meaning of the statute, on its face, § 45-9-55(2) unambiguously requires a physically restricted parking area in order for employers to lawfully prohibit the storage of guns in their employees' personal vehicles. Therefore, as the Court previously acknowledged, to obtain punitive damages, Plaintiff must establish that Defendant showed a "ruthless disregard" for his rights under § 45-9-55(2). The Court finds that Plaintiff should have his chance at trial to do so. The Motion on Punitive Damages [90], then, will be denied.

B. Motion on Special Damages [92]

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(g), "[i]f an item of special damage is claimed, it must be specifically stated." The Court agrees that Plaintiff has failed to plead emotional distress and reputational damage with the particularity required by Rule 9(g). However, the Fifth Circuit has stated that "[f]ailure to plead special damages does not bar recovery if the defect can be cured by amendment." Crosby v. Old Republic Ins. Co., 978 F.2d 210, 211 n.1 (5th Cir. 1992) (citing 5 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1312 (1990)). In Crosby, the special damages claim was not advanced until the pretrial conferences, and the Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not err in considering the claim as if the pleadings had been amended. Id. Here, it is clear from the record that Plaintiff can set forth specific allegations to support his special damages, and that Defendant will not be prejudiced if amendment is allowed because it has had ample notice of these claims. The Court will therefore allow for the amendment of his pleadings to reflect these particularities in order to comply with Rule 9(g), and the Motion on Special Damages [92] will be denied.


IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion on Punitive Damages [90] is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion on Special Damages [92] is denied.



1000 Characters Remaining reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases