IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2017-IA-01435-SCT HEALTH MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC., CLARKSDALE HMA PHYSICIAN MANAGEMENT, LLC, CLARKSDALE HMA, LLC INDIVIDUALLY AND d/b/a NORTHWEST MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL CENTER, MARK CATON, REGINA ROBINSON, MATTHEW TORMEY AND TEENA ROWE v. ROGER WEINER, M.D. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/12/2017 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. LINDA F. COLEMAN TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: RALPH E. CHAPMAN DANA J. SWAN ANDY LOWRY JAMIE F. JACKS COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: COAHOMA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS: ANDY LOWRY THOMAS L. KIRKLAND, JR. BILL LUCKETT, JR. JAMIE F. JACKS GERALD H. JACKS ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: DANA J. SWAN H. SCOT SPRAGINS LAWRENCE J. TUCKER, JR. NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL- TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED - 03/07/2019 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: EN BANC. CHAMBERLIN, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT: ¶1. Dr. Roger Weiner brought a malicious-prosecution claim against Health Management Associates Inc. and Teena Rowe. Dr. Roger Weiner based his malicious-prosecution claim on the federal district court’s dismissal of his criminal prosecution. The court had dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Health Management Associates Inc. and Teena Rowe filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the malicious-prosecution claim, arguing that a jurisdictional dismissal is not a favorable termination for the purposes of a malicious- prosecution claim. The trial court agreed. Later, with a new trial judge on the bench, Dr. Weiner sought reconsideration. The trial court reconsidered and reversed the former judge’s order. Health Management Associates Inc. and Teena Rowe appealed. The Court reverses and remands the judgment of the trial court, holding that it erred in denying the partial summary-judgment motion. STATEMENT OF FACTS ¶2. Dr. Roger Weiner was prosecuted in federal district court for violating the Mann Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a) (2012). Dr. Weiner sought dismissal of the charges, alleging that the interstate-commerce element was not met. The district court dismissed the charges for lack of federal jurisdiction, stating that “the federal nexus to interstate commerce necessary to create federal jurisdiction simply is not present in the case at bar.” The order stated that dismissal was jurisdictional and that “[i]n this case the court is not ruling on whether prostitution was never discussed and would never have been engaged in. If state or local prosecutorial authorities want to pursue a state law prosecution of solicitation of prostitution, that is their prerogative.” 2 ¶3. Subsequently, Dr. Weiner brought a civil suit against Health Management Associates Inc. (HMA) and Teena Rowe.1 The suit alleged a number of claims, including a claim for malicious prosecution. HMA and Rowe filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the malicious-prosecution claim. HMA and Rowe argued that the malicious-prosecution claim should be dismissed because a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of the underlying criminal prosecution did not amount to a “favorable termination” under the elements of a malicious- prosecution claim. ¶4. The trial judge granted HMA and Rowe’s motion for partial summary judgment. The trial judge then denied Dr. Weiner’s motion for reconsideration and certified ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals