Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

In 2004, Quality Diesel Service, Inc. obtained a judgment against Gulf South Drilling Company, LLC. Then, after learning that Tiger Drilling Company, LLC was indebted to Gulf South, Quality Diesel had multiple writs of garnishment issued and served on Tiger Drilling from 2004 to 2006. All of Tiger Drilling’s answers to the writs were almost identical, stating that Tiger Drilling was indebted to Gulf South but that the debt was not yet due. On November 29, 2006, Quality Diesel contested Tiger Drilling’s responses by filing a Petition to Controvert Answers to Garnishments, specifically contesting Tiger Drilling’s answer to a writ issued on January 18, 2006. On March 14, 2014, Tiger Drilling filed a motion to dismiss the garnishment proceeding. On October 3, 2014, the Circuit Court granted dismissal on the ground that the underlying judgment had expired while the case was pending. On appeal, Quality Diesel contended that, because the underlying judgment was valid when the writs of garnishment were issued and served (and when it filed its Petition to Controvert) it could maintain a garnishment proceeding against Tiger Drilling, despite the fact that the underlying judgment has since lapsed. This case presented an issue of first impression concerning Mississippi’s garnishment law: when a party gets a judgment, timely executes a writ of garnishment, and timely initiates a garnishment proceeding, is that party required to renew the underlying judgment to collect the “property in the hands of the garnishee belonging to the defendant” at the time the garnishment proceeding was filed, to defeat the running of the statute of limitations? The Supreme Court held that a party was not required to renew the underlying judgment to collect such property under these circumstances. In this case, the Court reversed and remanded. View "Quality Diesel Service, Inc. v. Tiger Drilling Company, LLC" on Justia Law

This case centered on a dispute between Gerald Scafidi and his sister, Jo Ann Hille about three family corporations and the land they inherited from their parents. Unable to get along, each sibling ran one of the corporations essentially as a sole proprietorship, while the third corporation ceased to do business. The sister, unhappy with the deadlock, brought this suit to end her business dealings with her brother and divide the assets. The chancellor found that the parties had failed to observe corporate formalities, so they were not entitled to the protections of the corporate form. The chancellor made an equitable distribution and granted each party full ownership of separate companies and then adjusted the property lines to grant each sibling a fifty-percent interest in the land. One corporation that could not be divided was sold by agreed order and the proceeds of the sale were divided between the siblings. Other parts of the ruling addressed attorney’s fees, expert fees, unpaid taxes, the BP settlement, and other matters. Gerald appealed, arguing that the chancellor erred by not following the statutory framework for dissolving and distributing corporate assets according to stated ownership interests. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Scafidi v. Hille" on Justia Law

Expro Americas, LLC ("Expro") filed a complaint seeking, inter alia, a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Eddie Walters, a former Expro employee, and H&H Welding, LLC. Expro offered "oil and gas well and pipeline services," including providing "specially designed flaring products and services to pipeline transmission companies and refineries along the Gulf Coast." Expro's six-inch, trailer-mounted flare stacks were at the heart of this dispute. Eddie Walters was an Expro employee until August 5, 2013. Thereafter, Walters was employed by Clean Combustion, a competitor of Expro's that was created in 2013 by former Expro employees. Expro filed its application for a restraining order against H&H and Walters, alleging that both defendants stole the design for its flare stack. Expro specifically alleged that "[t]he information used to design and create the trailer-mounted flaring system is a ‘trade secret' of Expro's." Furthermore, it alleged breach of contract against H&H, claiming that the terms of Expro's purchase orders with H&H contained a "Proprietary Rights" section "in which H&H ‘warrants to keep all design, information, blueprints and engineering data with respect to the Goods confidential and to not make use of but to assign to Expro each invention, improvement and discovery relating thereto (whether or not patentable) conceived or reduced to practice in the performance of the Purchase Order by any person employed by or working under the directions of the Supplier Group.'" The trial court granted the restraining order, but after conducting an evidentiary hearing, the chancellor dissolved the temporary restraining order and found no facts to justify the issuance of a preliminary injunction. The chancellor awarded the defendants attorneys' fees and expenses in excess of the $5,000 injunction bond that Expro had posted. After determining that Expro's suit against H&H was meritless, the chancellor sua sponte dismissed H&H from the suit with prejudice. Expro appealed, and the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court found that the chancellor did not err by awarding the defendants attorneys' fees and expenses, because Expro's application for a preliminary injunction was frivolous and was made in bad faith. However, the Court found the chancellor misapplied Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 4, and therefore erred by dismissing H&H from the suit with prejudice. View "Expro Americas, LLC v. Walters" on Justia Law