Alexander, et al. v. AC and S, Inc., et al.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-CA-01031-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 01-18-2007
Opinion Author: SMITH, C.J.
Holding: AFFIRMED

Additional Case Information: Topic: Personal injury - Retroactive application of M.R.C.P. 20 - Forum non conveniens - Due process - Equal protection
Judge(s) Concurring: WALLER AND COBB, P.JJ., EASLEY, CARLSON AND DICKINSON, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): RANDOLPH, J.
Dissenting Author : DIAZ, J.
Dissent Joined By : GRAVES, J.
Procedural History: Dismissal
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 04-21-2005
Appealed from: Jefferson County Circuit Court
Judge: Lamar Pickard
Disposition: Dismissed the lawsuits of 159 Plaintiffs/Appellants without prejudice.
Case Number: 2000-64

Note: Nature of the Case: Asbestos

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: BILLY G. ALEXANDER, et al.




ROBERT GORDON TAYLOR, III ROBERT A. PRITCHARD HELEN ELIZABETH SWARTZFAGER



 

Appellee: AC AND S, INC. f/k/a ARMSTRONG CONTRACTING & SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., et al. T. HUNT COLE, JR. THOMAS W. TARDY, III LAURA DEVAUGHN GOODSON  

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: Personal injury - Retroactive application of M.R.C.P. 20 - Forum non conveniens - Due process - Equal protection

Summary of the Facts: Fifteen plaintiffs, hailing from Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and Indiana, filed a complaint against 122 defendants, alleging that they suffered injuries caused by exposure to asbestos. An amended complaint was filed which added three more plaintiffs from Mississippi and 182 plaintiffs from Alabama. Defendant 3M Company filed a motion to dismiss predicated upon Harold’s Auto Parts, Inc. v. Mangialardi, 889 So. 2d 493 (Miss. 2004). Other defendants later filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the order in Mangialardi was applicable to asbestos cases. The trial court directed the severance and transfer of “all those in-state Plaintiffs without original jurisdiction and venue in Jefferson County, Mississippi, to the appropriate court of venue and jurisdiction, and dismiss, without prejudice, all those out-of-state Plaintiffs without original jurisdiction and venue in Jefferson County, Mississippi.” The trial court also required the plaintiffs to produce Mangialardi-compliant information in database form as to each plaintiff. The trial court eventually entered an agreed order which required further detail from the plaintiffs in order to properly comply with Mangialardi. The order provided that for all plaintiffs who are not residents of the State of Mississippi and whose cause of action did not occur or accrue in Mississippi, i.e. their alleged exposure to asbestos did not take place in the State of Mississippi, a notation of ‘Dismissal Without Prejudice’ was to be placed by their name in the database. The trial court entered a subsequent order finding that the lawsuits of 159 of the plaintiffs in the original suit should be dismissed without prejudice. The plaintiffs appeal.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: The plaintiffs argue that this case was properly filed in 2000, and that the amendments to M.R.C.P. 20 and its comment in 2004 should not be applied retroactively as to affect their case. In Albert v. Allied Glove Corp., 2006 Miss. LEXIS 661 (Miss. 2006), the Supreme Court mandated that the changes in Rule 20 must be applied to pending cases. Furthermore, the Court has consistently held that the trial judge did not err in dismissing without prejudice the claims of out-of-state plaintiffs whose causes of action accrued outside of Mississippi. The plaintiffs also argue that the trial court failed to ensure that an alternate forum suitable for their claims existed when ordering their case dismissed without prejudice. They argue that under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a suitable forum must exist for Alexander to refile his case, and if one does not, the trial court should issue an order requiring defendants to waive any statute of limitation defenses which could be raised in the alternative forums. However, this case does not turn on the doctrine of forum non conveniens but clearly falls under Rule 20. Therefore, the trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiffs’ claims. The plaintiffs argue that the circuit judge’s dismissal violates their due process rights. While the suit may have been dismissed without prejudice from a Mississippi court, the plaintiffs have not shown that they have attempted to file in another jurisdiction and been barred from doing so. In addition, they received the benefit of three separate hearings before the trial judge regarding the various intricacies of the case. The plaintiffs also argue that the dismissal of his lawsuit may violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, they have not demonstrated that they have been deprived of access to a court in another jurisdiction.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court