 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Craig v. Missouri Department of Health6/25/2002
Opinion Vote: REVERSED AND REMANDED.
All concur.
Opinion:
Dorinda Craig brought suit against the Missouri Department of Health (MDH) alleging a violation of her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). After a protracted procedural history, the case was dismissed by the circuit court. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the case is remanded.
I.
Craig's original ADA suit was filed in Cole County in December 1997. The MDH removed the case to the United States District Court for the Western District. While the case was pending, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued its opinion in Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle, Arkansas holding that, pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment, states are immune from ADA suits in federal court. The federal court, upon motion and over objection, allowed Craig to amend her complaint to add three new defendants and several new counts alleging violations of the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), the Rehabilitation Act (RA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and the Civil Rights Act (CRA). The CRA claims were ultimately withdrawn, and the remaining federal claims were found to be barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Finding it lacked jurisdiction over the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law MHRA claim. The case was remanded to state court.
After remand, the MDH filed an answer to Craig's second amended petition from the federal court and a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case finding the State to be immune from the federal claims and finding the MHRA claim to be time barred pursuant to section 213.111.1. Subsequent to the dismissal, Craig filed a motion for a new trial or to set aside the judgment and a motion for leave to file a third amended petition. These motions were not ruled upon and were deemed overruled ninety days after the date of filing pursuant to Rule 78.06. Craig appealed. After opinion by the court of appeals, this Court granted transfer, jurisdiction pursuant to Mo. Const. article V, section 10.
II.
"On appeal from the trial court's grant of Respondents' motion for judgment on the pleadings, we review the allegations of Appellants' petition to determine whether the facts pleaded therein are insufficient as a matter of law." The party moving for judgment on the pleadings admits, for purposes of the motion, the truth of all the opposing party's well pleaded facts, and the motion is properly granted if, from the face of the pleadings, the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
Craig maintains that the trial court erred for not granting her motion for a new trial or the motion to amend her petition because her second amended petition from the federal court remand, upon which the trial court relied, was not present in the state court file. Consequently, according to Craig, the judgment on the pleadings was not based on evidence in the record.
Since there is a dispute as to which pleadings were properly before the circuit court when it rendered its judgment, this Court must illuminate the procedural posture and status of the claims remanded from the federal district court. The federal court has jurisdiction to decide if it has jurisdiction over the claims filed by the petitioner. When it granted Craig leave to amend, the federal district court was evaluating its jurisdiction over Craig's ADA claim in light of the Alsbrook decision after Craig's claim had been removed to federal court on the motion of the MDH.
The MDH asserts that not onl
Page 1 2 3 Missouri Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|