In Crawford v. Hinds County the plaintiff sued the county over the Hinds County Courthouse not being accessible to the disabled. Plaintiff sought damages and injunctive relief requiring the county to make all seven courtrooms and all bathrooms accessible.

Before trial, plaintiff rejected the county’s offer to renovate two courtrooms, one bathroom per floor and miscellaneous items.

A bench trial was held before U.S. District Judge Tom Lee on February 12-13, 2019.

The Court ruled on October 18, 2019. Here is the Memorandum Opinion.

Before trial, the County and Plaintiff settled Plaintiff’s damages claim. That left his claim for injunctive relief.

The Court revisited the standing issue Hinds County raised in its summary judgment motion and determined that Plaintiff lacked standing. The Court concluded:

The court does not doubt the sincerity of plaintiff’s interest in the County’s compliance with its obligation under the ADA to ensure that programs, services and activities it operates at the courthouse are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. However, as nothing in his actions suggests to the court that plaintiff had a genuine intent to return to the courthouse for any purpose, the court concludes that plaintiff lacks standing to obtain injunctive relief because he has not proven that he faces an immediate and real threat of future injury. Accordingly, it is ordered that plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is denied.

Andrew Bizer with Bizer & Dereus in New Orleans represented plaintiff.

Pieter Teeuwissen of Jackson and Will Allen of Brookhaven represented the county.

My Take:

Tough loss for the plaintiff. No one disputes that the courthouse (built in 1932) needs to be updated for persons with disabilities. But federal judges take jurisdiction and standing issues very serious.

Seems like plaintiff should have taken the offer for partial remediation, waited a while and then gotten someone else to sue for the rest later.

On Tuesday a federal court jury rendered a total verdict of $3.3 million in EEOC v. Danny’s Downtown Cabaret. Here is the Complaint.

The EEOC alleged Danny’s discriminated against five dancers on the basis of race. See the Complaint for details.

The trial began on May 6, 2019 and ended on May 14. The jury rendered a plaintiff verdict for:

• $1.68 million- compensatory damages;
• $130,550- back pay; and
• $1.5 million- punitive damages.

I believe a cap applies to the damages verdict, but I do not know the particulars.

EEOC’s attorneys were Alysia Franklin, Christopher Wooley and Gerald Miller from its Birmingham office.

Danny’s attorney was William Walter of Hattiesburg. Walter was a late entry in the case.

District Judge Henry Wingate presided.

On May 1, 2019 a federal court jury in Gulfport rendered a $70,000 plaintiff verdict in Gardner v. CLC of Pascagoula, LLC.

This was a sexual harassment case with a twist. The plaintiff was a certified nurse assistant at CLC’s assisted living facility. She was harassed by a resident of the facility–not the employer.

The District Court previously dismissed the case on summary judgment. But the 5th Circuit reversed in February. Here is the 5th Circuit’s Opinion.

The case went to trial soon after remand with the jury finding for the plaintiff. Here is the jury’s verdict form.

The jury awarded the following damages:

• $30,000- past pain and suffering, mental anguish;
• $30,000- future pain and suffering, mental anguish; and
• $10,000- back pay.

Daniel Waide of Johnson, Ratliff & Waide in Hattiesburg represented the plaintiff.

John Wheeler and Brad Dillard with Mitchell McNutt in Tupelo represented the defendant.

District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. presided.

My Take:

The 5th Circuit remanded the case on February 6.The Court set the case for trial on March 19. The trial started on April 29. That’s amazing.

Someone should give Judge Guirola an award for getting the case tried so soon after remand.

On Thursday a federal court jury in Jackson rendered a mixed verdict in Bingham v. Asemotas Real Estate, LLC.

Here is the Complaint.

Plaintiff alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and beach of contract.

Here is the jury’s Verdict.

The jury found for the Defendant on the breach of contract claim and hung on the FLSA claim.

The trial lasted 3 days.

Nick Norris with Watson & Norris in Jackson represented the Plaintiff. Brandon Dorsey of Jackson represented the Defendant.

District Judge Sul Ozerden presided.

On February 15, 2019 a federal court jury in Gulfport rendered a total verdict of $4,170,172 in Woulard v. Greenwood Motor Lines. The case involved an 18-wheeler colliding with a car on I-10 in Jackson County. Here is the Complaint.

Here is the Final Judgment.

The jury apportioned 80% fault to the driver of the 18-wheeler. Economic damages were $2,670,172. Non-economic damages were $1.5 million.

The court applied the $1 million cap on non-economic damages before deducting the 20% fault not apportioned to the defendant.

John Satcher of Jackson and Sean O’Rourke of Webster, Texas represented plaintiff.

Brent Cole, Sterling Kidd and Stephen Kennedy of Baker Donelson in Jackson and Joe Sam Owen with Owen & Galloway in Gulfport represented defendant.

District Judge Sul Ozerden presided.

My Take:

If the purpose of caps is to protect defendants from huge judgments based on non-economic damages, they should apply to verdicts after apportionment of fault. Here, the judgment for non-economic damages would be $1 million ($1.5 million – $300,000 = $1.2 million).

If the purpose of caps is to lower verdicts as much as possible, then caps should apply before apportionment, as done here.

Unless I’m mistaken, the way the Court applied caps here, if the jury had apportioned 20% fault to the defendant, the non-economic damages judgment would have been $40,000 ($200,000 – $160,000 = $40,000).

That doesn’t seem fair. Particularly since 18-wheelers have to be heavily insured.

At least caps do not apply to non-economic damages. In tort cases, I wouldn’t count on that being the law forever in Mississippi. It’s already not the law in Tort Claims Act cases.

On June 29, 2018, a jury returned a defense verdict in federal court in Dykes v. Cleveland Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC. The verdict concluded a 5 day trial.

Plaintiff alleged the nursing home negligently failed to adequately prevent and treat a sacral wound, dehydration and infection. Plaintiff argued the staff’s negligent care caused the injuries and death of the 90 year old resident.

The nursing home responded that the staff complied with the standard of care and the resident died as a result of his significant number of advanced diseases.

Plaintiff requested $1.25 million in compensatory damages.

Judge Debra Brown presided. The jury consisted of six African Americans and one white female.

Plaintiff was represented by Paul Williams, John Hawkins, Jason Kirschberg, David Norquist and Matt Newman.

The nursing home was represented by Brad Smith and Sterling Kidd with Baker Donelson in Jackson and La’Verne Edney with Butler Snow in Ridgeland.

My Take:

A few thoughts. The older the resident, the harder it is for a plaintiff to win a nursing home trial. It gets really hard when the resident was over age 80. The defense’s argument that the person was old and unhealthy and would have died regardless of their care plays well. Defense lawyers have gotten really good at defending nursing home cases by asserting that defense.

Another problem for plaintiffs is that the non-economic damages caps indirectly limit how much money plaintiffs can invest to work up a case. You can’t spend $150,000 working the case up when the most you can get at trial is $500,000. After Medicare/ Medicaid take their cut and the attorneys recoup their fees and expenses, there’s no money left for the plaintiffs. One solution is to handle the case on the cheap. But that also makes it a lot harder to win.

Another solution is to stop taking nursing home cases, which is the approach taken by most plaintiff attorneys who used to handle the cases.

Similar considerations are also a factor in why you don’t see more product liability cases in Mississippi even with a $1 million non-economic damages cap.