Present: All the Justices
ANNIE CONNER
OPINION BY JUSTICE LEROY R. HASSELL, SR.
v. Record No. 951836 June 7, 1996
JAMES M. ROSE
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRICO COUNTY
James E. Kulp, Judge
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 in 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 Conner's 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.
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
court's 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.