Summary
holding that where plaintiff took nonsuit in general district court in action seeking damages of $4,000 and refiled in circuit court against same defendant on same cause of action but sought damages of $11,000, an amount in excess of district court's jurisdictional limit, circuit court was proper forum for second action
Summary of this case from Lewis v. Culpeper DeptOpinion
Record No. 951836
June 7, 1996
Present: All the Justices
The circuit court erred in holding that Code § 8.01-380(A) does not allow a plaintiff who had taken a nonsuit in a general district court to refile her action in the circuit court when the ad damnum clause in her motion for judgment exceeds the jurisdictional limit of the general district court. That judgment is reversed and the case remanded to the circuit court.
Practice and Procedure — Nonsuits — General District Court Actions — Refiling in Circuit Court — Jurisdiction — Ad Damnum in Excess of Jurisdictional Limit
The plaintiff filed an action in the Richmond City General District Court, alleging that the defendant had breached warranties he had made to her when he sold her a house. She sought $4,000 in damages. On the defendants motion, the action was transferred to Henrico County District Court. Subsequently, she nonsuited her action in that court and refiled her action in the circuit court of Henrico County. Her motion for judgment included causes of action for breach of warranty and fraud in connection with the purchase of the house and she sought compensatory and punitive damages totaling $11,000. Relying on Code § 8.01-380(A), the defendant requested that the circuit court transfer the action to the general district court because the plaintiffs nonsuit was taken there. The circuit court did so and the plaintiff appeals.
1. The statutory language in Code § 8.01-380(A) is clear and unambiguous, and its plain meaning is to permit the plaintiff to refile her action in the circuit court because the ad damnum clause in her motion for judgment exceeds the general district courts jurisdictional limit of $10,000.
2. The general district court is without jurisdiction to adjudicate the plaintiffs claim and the judgment of the circuit court is reversed.
Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Henrico County. Hon. James E. Kulp, judge presiding.
Reversed and remanded.
Sharon N. Horner (Donald J. Gee, on brief), for appellant. No brief or argument for appellee.
Code § 8.01-380(A) contains a limitation which provides that "[a]fter a nonsuit no new proceeding on the same cause of action or against the same party shall be had in any court other than that in which the nonsuit was taken, unless that court is without jurisdiction." In this appeal, we consider whether Code § 8.01-380(A) permits a plaintiff to nonsuit an action in a general district court and to refile that action in a circuit court, claiming damages in excess of the jurisdiction of the general district court.
In 1994, Annie Conner filed an action against James M. Rose in the Richmond City General District Court. Conner alleged in her warrant m debt that she had purchased a home from Rose and that he breached certain warranties that he had made to her. Conner sought damages in the amount of $4,000.
On Rose's motion, the action was transferred to the Henrico County General District Court. Subsequently, Conner nonsuited her action in that court and refiled her action in the Circuit Court of Henrico County. Her motion for judgment included causes of action for breach of warranty and fraud in connection with the purchase of the house. She sought compensatory and punitive damages totaling $11,000.
Relying upon Code § 8.01-380(A), Rose requested that the circuit court transfer Conners action to the general district court. Rose argued, and the trial court held, that Code § 8.01-380(A) requires that Conner refile her action in the general district court because her nonsuit was taken in that court. We awarded Conner an appeal.
Conner asserts that Code § 8.01-380(A) permits her to file her action in the circuit court because the ad damnum clause in her motion for judgment exceeds the jurisdictional limit of the general district court and, therefore, the general district court lacks jurisdiction over her action. We agree.
[1-2] The applicable statutory language quoted in Code § 8.01-380(A) is clear and unambiguous and, therefore, we apply its plain meaning. Barr v. Town Country Properties, Inc., 240 Va. 292, 295, 396 S.E.2d 672. 674 (1990). This language permits Conner to refile her action in the circuit court because the ad damnum clause in her motion for judgment exceeds the general district courts jurisdictional limit of $10,000, see Code § 16.1-77. Therefore, the general district court is without jurisdiction to adjudicate her claims.
Accordingly, we will reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.