Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Horry County respectfully moves, pursuant to Rule 12(c), SCRCP, for judgment
on the pleadings on the City of Myrtle Beach’s allegations about this case being a class
action.
Introduction
This motion is simple: The City pled its claims as a class action. State law
specifically prohibits a class action. Therefore, the City’s case cannot proceed as a class
Factual Allegations
This Court is already familiar with this case, in which the City challenges the
validity of the County’s Hospitality Fee. As relevant to this motion, the City has pled
counties, municipalities, state agencies, and instrumentalities of the State” who have
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2019 Jul 02 3:24 PM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2019CP2601732
paid the Hospitality Fee since January 1, 2017. Compl. ¶ 7. The City then alleges that
common questions of law and fact exist and that the City is the right entity to represent
The County denied that a class action is appropriate. Answer & Countercls. ¶¶
8–4
Legal Standard
Rule 12(c) allows a party, “[a]fter the pleadings are closed,” to “move for
judgment on the pleadings.” Rule 12(c), SCRCP. This motion should be granted
whenever “no issue of fact raised by the complaint that would entitle plaintiff to
judgment if resolved in plaintiff’s favor.” Sapp v. Ford Motor Co., 386 S.C. 143, 146,
687 S.E.2d 47, 49 (2009). “A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c)
is considered under a similar standard as Rule 12(b)(6), with the key difference being
that on a 12(c) motion, the court considers the answer as well as the complaint.”
2015).
The note to Rule 12(c) observes that this rule “is more important than the
Federal Rule, because of the requirement for fact pleading” in South Carolina. Rule
Argument
Section 12-60-80 prohibits any class remedy for the “refund of taxes” (which
includes fees, see S.C. Code § 12-60-30(27)) or for “declaratory relief where the sole
2
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2019 Jul 02 3:24 PM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2019CP2601732
issue is whether a statute is constitutional,” id. § 12-60-80(B), (C). Moreover, this
The language of this statute is clear. See Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 85,
533 S.E.2d 578, 581 (2000). A plaintiff cannot bring a class claim for declaratory
relief. S.C. Code § 12-60-80(B). Nor can a plaintiff bring a class claim for a refund.
Id. § 12-60-80(C); see also Lightner v. Hampton Hall Club, Inc., 419 S.C. 357, 368, 798
S.E.2d 555, 560 (2017) (“The plain language of the statute prohibits a claim for a tax
refund from being brought as a class action in any court of law in this state.”).
In light of this statute, the City’s attempt to pursue class certification here
must fail. Therefore, the Court should grant the County’s motion for judgment on
Conclusion
Respectfully submitted:
s/Henrietta U. Golding
Henrietta U. Golding, S.C. Bar # 2173
2411 N. Oak Street, Suite 206 (29577)
Myrtle Beach, SC 29577
Ph: (843) 444-1107
Fax: (843) 443-9137
Email: hgolding@burr.com
3
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2019 Jul 02 3:24 PM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2019CP2601732
Adam R. Artigliere, S.C. Bar #75328
Poinsett Plaza
104 South Main Street
Suite 700
Greenville, SC 29601
Ph: (864) 271-4940
Fax: (864) 271-4015
Email: aartigliere@burr.com