Oral arg. – Miss.S.Ct. – Sept. 28, 2016

At 10:00 the Court will hear a case sure to warm the hearts of all  civil procedure junkies everywhere (if they have one): Kimberlee Davenport v. Hansaworld U.S.A., Inc.  You’ll need to pay close attention.

Davenport was employed by software company HansaWorld as its sales manager for the United States and Canada prior to her termination in October 2012.   In March 2014 HansaWorld obtained a judgment against  Davenport  in Miami, Florida in the amount of $265,719.45 in a lawsuit in which Hansaworld accused Davenport of, among other things,  failing to return company property.    Davenport did not appeal.

Hansaworld enrolled the judgment in the Circuit Court of Forrest County.  In December 2013, Davenport filed a lawsuit against Hansaworld in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi alleging violations of Title VII and state law claims. The lawsuit was the subject of a  Sheriff’s sale.  On March 31, 2015, the Circuit Clerk of Forrest County, Mississippi issued a Writ of Execution.   On April 3, 2015, the Sheriff of Forrest County posted a Notice of Sale of Choses in Action under Execution of Judgment  which provided that  Davenport’s Federal Court claims against HansaWorld would be auctioned on April 14, 2015.

On April 11, 2015, Davenport  filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in Texas thereby staying the Sheriff’s sale.  The bankruptcy was dismissed on June 29, 2015.   In Forrest County, Davenport filed a  Motion to Quash the Writ of Execution  which was granted by the Circuit Court. However, the  Court  conditioned the quashing of the writ of execution on Davenport posting a bond in the amount of $100,000. Davenport was unable to post the bond, the sale went forward, and HansaWorld  purchased Davenport’s lawsuit against it for  $1,000. Hansaworld then filed a motion to substitute itself as the party in interest in Davenport’s place intending to dismiss the lawsuit.  The federal lawsuit has been stayed pending the outcome of the instant appeal.

Davenport  filed an appeal of the Circuit Court’s order requiring her to post a bond  arguing that “[b]ecause the quashing of the writ of execution constituted permanent relief, the posting of a bond served no purpose in this matter.”   Hansaworld argues that the appeal should be dismissed because the order was not a final judgment but rather a  preliminary injunction issued pursuant to Rule 65.




Watch the argument here

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s