Dr. Glover also provided her expert opinion on whether there was breach of duty by the officers and directors of Rainbow and, whether Rainbow, Investor Resource, and other minority shareholders had sustained damages from those actions and through the expenditures of Rainbow contained in her compilation of financial documents in the form of schedules. In Funderburk v. Johnson, 935 So.2d 1084, 1107 (Miss.Ct.App. 2006), an expert was allowed to testify as to charts of information that he compiled based on daily cash deposits from a store experiencing cash shortages and an employee's cash deposits into her own checking account. "Generally, questions related to the bases and sources of an expert's opinion affect the weight to be afforded the opinion by the jury, not the admissibility of the opinion."

The undisputed evidence reflects that Defendants followed the direction of the Justice Court Clerk to fill out the Bad Check Affidavit. With over $16,000 of dishonored checks written by Gatheright, the Defendants were not unreasonable in reporting him to the Justice Court. See Funderburk v. Johnson, 935 So. 2d 1084, 1098-99 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) ("The court must determine whether, from the facts apparent to the defendant, a reasonable person would have initiated the prosecution."); Bankston v. Pass Road Tire Ctr., Inc., 611 So. 2d 998, 1007 (Miss.

The defendant's conduct "must be so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." Id. Liability will not attach for mere insults, threats, indignities, petty oppression, annoyances, or other trivialities. Funderburk v. Johnson, 935 So. 2d 1084, 1100 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). Additionally, "[a] claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress will not ordinarily lie for mere employment disputes.

The defendant's conduct "must be so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." Id. Liability will not attach for mere insults, threats, indignities, petty oppression, annoyances, or other trivialities. Funderburk v. Johnson, 935 So. 2d 1084, 1100 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). As noted above, Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for malicious prosecution.

"The [Mississippi] supreme court has pronounced that malicious prosecution actions must be 'managed with great caution.'" Funderburk v. Johnson, 935 So.2d 1084, 1097 (Miss. Ct.App. 2006)(citation omitted). This is because "the threat of a malicious prosecution suit may deter citizens from attempting to bring wrongdoers to justice, necessitating a cautious approach to these suits."

"The [Mississippi] supreme court has pronounced that malicious prosecution actions must be 'managed with great caution.'" Funderburk v. Johnson, 935 So. 2d 1084, 1097 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (citation omitted). That is because "the threat of a malicious prosecution suit may deter citizens from attempting to bring wrongdoers to justice, necessitating a cautious approach to these suits."

"To prove a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must show that the defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous, going beyond all possible bounds of decency." Funderburk v. Johnson, 935 So.2d 1084, 1100 (Miss.Ct.App. 2006). "Liability does not extend to `mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, or petty oppression."

The standard for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is very high in Mississippi, focusing specifically on the defendant's conduct and not the plaintiffs emotional condition. Funderburk v. Johnson, 935 So.2d 1084, 1099 (¶ 40) (Miss.Ct.App. 2006). To prevail on a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant's conduct was reckless, intentional, and so outrageous to such an extreme degree that it exceeds the bounds of decency and, thus, is not tolerated by a civilized community.

” Funderburk v. Johnson, 935 So.2d 1084, 1101 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). The particular incident that Gibbons appears to zero in on for this claim concerns the after-hours conversation McRaney had with the unnamed resident (“This recorded after-hours call” had “all the elements of discrimination . . . defamation of character, hostile work environment . . . ” (emphasis added)).

A claim of defamation requires the claimant to establish a false statement having the capacity to injure the claimant's reputation, in addition to other elements. Funderburk v. Johnson, 935 So.2d 1084, 1101 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (citing Fulton v. Miss. Publishers Corp., 498 So.2d 1215, 1216 (Miss. 1986)). “Mississippi law requires that a complaint for defamation must provide allegations of sufficient particularity so as to give the defendant or defendants notice of the nature of the complained-of statements.” Chalk v. Bertholf, 980 So.2d 290, 297 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007).