Choctaw, Inc. v. Campbell-Cherry-Harrison-Davis and Dove
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-01621-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-04-2007 Opinion Author: EASLEY, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sanctions for frivolous suit - Section 11-55-3(a) - M.R.C.P. 11 - Res judicata - Additional discovery Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., WALLER, P.J., CARLSON, DICKINSON, RANDOLPH AND LAMAR, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: DIAZ, P.J., AND GRAVES, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-17-2006 Appealed from: NOXUBEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Lee J. Howard Disposition: Court denied Appellant's Motion for Sanctions Case Number: 2002-430 |
|
| Consolidated: 2006-CA-01625-SCT Choctaw, Inc., et al. v. Campbell-Cherry-Harrison-Davis and Dove | ||
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | CHOCTAW, INC., ET AL. |
FRED KRUTZ
EDWIN S. GAULT, JR.
DANIEL J. MULHOLLAND
BRIAN BARRY HANNULA
RONALD G. PERESICH
W. MARK EDWARDS
RANDI PERESICH MUELLER
JOHANNA MALBROUGH McMULLAN |
||
| Appellee: | CAMPBELL-CHERRY-HARRISON-DAVIS AND DOVE | DEWITT T. HICKS, JR. WILLIAM THOMAS COOPER STEVE McCONNICO |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Sanctions for frivolous suit - Section 11-55-3(a) - M.R.C.P. 11 - Res judicata - Additional discovery |
| Summary of the Facts: | On December 30, 2002, Campbell-Cherry-Harrison-Davis-Dove, P.C., a Texas law firm, filed its original complaints in Baldwin, et al. v. Graco Enterprises, Inc., et al., Cause No. 2002-429, on behalf of 247 plaintiffs, and Prince, et al. v. Pearl River Sand & Gravel Co., Inc., et al., Cause No. 2002-430, on behalf of 4,200 plaintiffs, in the Noxubee County Circuit Court, against 131 unrelated defendants for alleged personal injuries suffered by the CCHDD Plaintiffs’ exposure to silica. The lawsuits were filed in the circuit court by the CCHDD Plaintiffs’ Mississippi counsel, William H. Liston, Esq., Liston & Lancaster. Amended complaints were filed in the circuit court on March 24, 2003, by Attorney Liston. The CCHDD Plaintiffs’ cases were subsequently, successfully removed by the Defendants to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. Thereafter, the cases were removed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi to the United District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which was handling a multi-district litigation docket for silicosis claims. The Plaintiffs who were removed to the federal court, including the CCHDD Plaintiffs, objected to the removal based on an alleged lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The judge reserved ruling on the lack of subject matter jurisdiction claim, allowing some initial discovery as to the Plaintiffs’ claims and jurisdiction. The judge concluded that she lacked jurisdiction over most of the lawsuits, including all of the CCHDD Plaintiffs, that had been filed in state court and removed to the MDL federal court. The judge criticized the opinions supporting the silicosis claims, despite her admitted lack of subject matter jurisdiction to render any ruling as to the cases except to remand. Once the CCHDD Plaintiffs were remanded to Mississippi state court, CCHDD filed a motion for determination of status pursuant to Harold’s Auto Parts, Inc. v. Mangialardi, 889 So. 2d 493 (Miss. 2004). By agreement between the parties, on an ore tenus motion to the trial court, most of the Plaintiffs’ claims against the Defendants were dismissed without prejudice and each party agreed to bear its own costs. Despite the agreement to bear their own costs, some of the 131 defendants filed motions for sanctions, alleging that CCHDD frivolously filed the two suits. The circuit court entered an order denying the motions for sanctions. The Defendants appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Section 11-55-3(a) provides that a claim is without substantial justification when it is frivolous, groundless in fact or in law, or vexatious, as determined by the court. For purposes of M.R.C.P. 11, a claim is frivolous only when, objectively speaking, the pleader or movant has no hope of success. To deem a question of law frivolous, groundless in fact or in law, or vexatious merely because there is no existing Mississippi law on the subject would have a chilling effect on all litigation involving questions of first impression. The Defendants argue that CCHDD’s screening process was a device designed to generate unfounded claims. CCHDD retained a screening company, N&M, Inc., to handle the screening process so CCHDD could be detached from the diagnosis. N&M was paid for each positive individual. However, the physicians were paid regardless of whether the diagnosis was positive. Many of the CCHDD Plaintiffs also had been previously diagnosed with asbestosis. Despite their agreeing to the dismissal of the CCHDD’s claims without prejudice and bearing their own costs associated with the litigation, the Defendants attack the judge’s ruling denying the motions for sanctions. First, the Defendants argue that CCHDD delayed the proceedings. Based on the background of the case, including its long history of transfers and the period of time allowed by the federal court for discovery, the CCHDD Plaintiffs did not delay the litigation for the purpose of harassment. The fact that CCHDD dismissed its Plaintiffs’ claims does not prove that CCHDD acted to delay the proceedings. The Defendants also argue that the circuit court judge was bound under the doctrine of res judicata to adopt the rulings by the federal judge. The doctrine of res judicata applies only to questions actually litigated in a prior suit, and not to questions which might have been litigated. Under the facts of this case, the circuit judge correctly found that since the federal judge admittedly lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, the circuit court was not bound by her rulings as to the CCHDD Plaintiffs on remand. Alternatively, the Defendants argue that the judge erred in denying the Defendants’ request for additional discovery. As the record demonstrates, however, the discovery allowed by the federal judge provided sufficient discovery for the circuit court to proceed with the motions for sanctions. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
