Albert, et al. v. Allied Glove Corp., et al.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-01022-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-30-2006 Opinion Author: SMITH, C.J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - M.R.C.P. 20 - Retroactive application of change in joinder rules - 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 : GRAVES, J., Without Separate Written Opinion Dissenting Author : Diaz, J., Dissents With Separate Written Opinion Dissent Joined By : Graves, J., in part 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 Appellant's case without prejudice Case Number: 2000-150 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | KARL ALBERT, et al. |
ROBERT GORDON TAYLOR, III, ROBERT A. PRITCHARD, HELEN ELIZABETH SWARTZFAGER |
||
| Appellee: | ALLIED GLOVE CORPORATION, et al. | T. HUNT COLE , JR., THOMAS W. TARDY, III, LAURA DEVAUGHN GOODSON, DOMINIC JOHN OVELLA |
|
|
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 - M.R.C.P. 20 - Retroactive application of change in joinder rules - Forum non conveniens - Due process - Equal protection |
| Summary of the Facts: | This case was originally filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County in September of 2000, on behalf of 259 plaintiffs against approximately 98 defendants, alleging various tort and product liability theories related to the plaintiffs’ alleged exposure to asbestos. The following month, an amended complaint was filed, adding three plaintiffs. In October of 2004, a portion of the 97 Defendants filed a motion for relief pursuant to Harold’s Auto Parts, Inc., v. Mangialardi, 889 So. 2d 493 (Miss. 2004). Pursuant to Mangialardi, the trial judge entered an order on April of 2005, dismissing without prejudice the plaintiffs’ claims. The plaintiffs appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The plaintiffs argue the judge’s retroactive application of the change in joinder rules under M.R.C.P. 20 was improper. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held judicially enunciated rules are to be applied retroactively. The plaintiffs argue that after five years of filing their complaint, they are now subject to dismissal without the ability to pursue their actions in another forum due to statutes of limitations concerns or changes in law. If the Court does not apply Mangialardi and the other cases, alongside the changes in Rule 20, to pending suits, trial courts will be stripped of a valuable tool in guarding the integrity of our court system. Every case filed involving out-of-state litigants with no connection with Mississippi depletes the judicial resources of this state. Furthermore, as none of the plaintiffs have demonstrated that they will not be able to maintain suits in other jurisdictions, there is no evidence of any alleged unfairness that will result from the application of retroactivity in this case. They have made merely a bold, broad allegation of such alleged prejudice. The plaintiffs also argue under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a suitable forum must exist for the plaintiffs to refile their case, and if 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. The plaintiffs argue that their constitutionally-afforded right to due process, under both the Mississippi and federal constitutions, was violated by the trial court’s dismissal of their claims. It is without question that a cause of action is a species of property protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause of the federal constitution. However, the plaintiffs have not yet demonstrated that they were deprived of their property interest in their lawsuit. While the suit may have been dismissed without prejudice from a Mississippi court, the plaintiffs have not shown that they attempted to file in another jurisdiction and been barred from doing so. The plaintiffs also argue the dismissal of their claims violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Since the record does not reflect that they presented this argument at the trial court level, the plaintiffs are barred from raising this issue on appeal. In addition, the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the Court’s refusal to hear claims over which it has no jurisdiction has deprived them of access to a court in another jurisdiction. Nor have they demonstrated any concrete reason why the action should be maintained in Mississippi. Accordingly, there is no constitutional violation. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
