Coleman, et al. v. A-Bex Corp., et al.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-01038-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, P.J., EASLEY, CARLSON AND DICKINSON, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): COBB, P.J., AND RANDOLPH, J. Dissenting Author : DIAZ, J. Dissent Joined By : GRAVES, J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-22-2005 Appealed from: Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge: Lamar Pickard Disposition: Court severed Appellants' claims. Appellants' appeal the dismissal of their claims without prejudice Case Number: 2000-18 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | DAVID COLEMAN, JASPER DENSON, WILLIAM
ELM, JAMES LEE GILL, JAMES F. MCGOWAN
AND WILLIAM MULLIGAN
|
ROBERT GORDON TAYLOR, III, ROBERT A. PRITCHARD, HELEN E. SWARTZFAGER |
||
| Appellee: | A-BEX CORPORATION., et al. | T. HUNT COLE, JR., THOMAS W. TARDY, III, LAURA DEVAUGHN GOODSON, EDWIN S. GAULT |
|
|
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 on February 4, 2000, with eleven plaintiffs and 77 defendants. On October 12, 2004, Laurel Machine & Foundry Company filed a Motion to Dismiss predicated upon Harold’s Auto Parts, Inc. v. Mangialardi, 889 So. 2d 493 (Miss. 2004). The trial court ordered that the plaintiffs produce Mangialardi-compliant information in database form as to each plaintiff; specifically, their name, county and state of residence, county and state of alleged exposure, county of residence of a Mississippi defendant (if relevant), and whether the plaintiff should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and venue or where the case should be transferred. This information would be used to transfer the plaintiffs to proper venues. In many cases, the information demonstrated that the plaintiff had no connection with the state of Mississippi. The court ordered the claims of six plaintiffs dismissed without prejudice. Those plaintiffs appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The plaintiffs argue that the application of the post-2004 line of cases dealing with venue and joinder should not be applied retroactively. The Court has already addressed this issue in Albert v. Allied Glove Corp., No. 2005-CA-01022-SCT (Miss. 2006). In Albert, the Court mandated that the changes in Rule 20 must be applied to pending cases. The plaintiffs’ reliance on the doctrine of forum non conveniens is misplaced since the determination of this joinder issue clearly falls under Rule 20. The plaintiffs have not yet demonstrated that they have been deprived of their property interest in their lawsuit. 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. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
