Canadian Nat'l./Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Smith, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2005-IA-01473-SCT Linked Case(s): 2005-IA-01473-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-23-2006 Opinion Author: Dickinson, J. Holding: PETITION GRANTED - AFFIRMED IN PART AND REMANDED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Severance - M.R.C.P. 20 - Refiling of cases - Venue Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Carlson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Dissenting Author : Easley and Graves, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Cobb, P.J. Procedural History: Bench Trial |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-18-2005 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Tomie Green Disposition: In ordering the agreed severance, the court stated that the five remaining Plaintiffs were properly in the First Judicial District of Hinds County & stated that the other four Plaintiffs needed to file amended complaints to receive new civil action numbers. Appellant appeals the court's order arguing that there was no random assignment of cases. Case Number: 251-03-445CIV |
|
| Note: | Petition for Illinois Central Railroad Company for Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition and for Permission to Appeal Interlocutory Orders of the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County is granted. Affirmed in Part and Remanded with Instructions. See Opinion of this Court handed down this date. Petition for Illinois Central Railroad Company for Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition and for Permission to Appeal Interlocutory Orders of the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County is granted. Affirmed in Part and Remanded with Instructions. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | CANADIAN NATIONAL/ILLINOIS CENTRAL
RAILROAD COMPANY |
GLENN F. BECKHAM, LONNIE D. BAILEY, EDWARD BLACKMON, JR.,
FRANK JONES |
||
| Appellee: | TERRY LOUIS SMITH, ET AL | JAMES B. GRENFELL, BRAD M. WILLIAMS |
|
|
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 - Severance - M.R.C.P. 20 - Refiling of cases - Venue |
| Summary of the Facts: | Suit was originally brought against Illinois Central Railroad Company by three employees under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. § 51, et seq. The original complaint alleged the plaintiffs worked for the Railroad “and/or its predecessors” and that plaintiffs were exposed to various hazardous materials including “asbestos, asbestos containing products, sand, silica, ballast dust, grinding dust, diesel fumes, coal dust and other fibrogenic, carcinogenic noxious and deleterious dusts fumes, mists solvents and gases. The complaint, which treats the plaintiffs as a single entity, neither specifies negligence or harm associated with any particular plaintiff nor explains when, where, how, or by what product any particular plaintiff was injured. Several plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims, leaving five plaintiffs before the Court. Recognizing their inability to comply with the requirements for proper joinder of claims under M.R.C.P. 20, the plaintiffs agreed to severance. However, in ordering the agreed severance, Hinds County Circuit Judge Tomie Green proclaimed that the claims of the five remaining plaintiffs were “properly filed in the First Judicial District of Hinds County,” and that “this action shall proceed as to the claims of Larry Polk.” The other four plaintiffs were required to file amended complaints and obtain new civil action numbers from the clerk. The Supreme Court granted the Railroad’s motion for interlocutory appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The Railroad argues that, in issuing her order requiring the four plaintiffs to file amended complaints, Judge Green bypassed the random assignment procedure required by Rule 1.05A of the Uniform Rules of Circuit and County Court Practice. Having severed the cases of four plaintiffs from Polk’s case, Judge Green believed all five cases were continuing in nature, notwithstanding her order of new civil action numbers for the four that were severed. Because the suits of all five plaintiffs were originally assigned to her, and because she concluded that all five plaintiffs could properly pursue their claims in the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Judge Green thought it appropriate to retain the case of one plaintiff and order the clerk to assign her the other four. This case presents a question of first impression, that is, whether the lawsuits of misjoined plaintiffs – after severance – should be dismissed and refiled as new cases. Because the trial court held the five plaintiffs’ cases were appropriately filed in the First Judicial District of Hinds County, the plaintiffs argue no transfer would be necessary, and all five cases could, and should, continue before Judge Green. There is no purpose to be served in requiring amended complaints to be filed, then transferred. Where plaintiffs are misjoined and severance is required, the better rule – and the one adopted today – is for the trial court to (1) allow a plaintiff whose case is properly before the court (if any), and all properly joined plaintiffs, to proceed in the filed action, (2) allow misjoined plaintiffs who are properly before the trial court to proceed with separate actions in the forum court, and (3) sever and dismiss all misjoined plaintiffs who lack proper venue in the forum court, allowing each severed plaintiff to file a new complaint in an appropriate venue selected by that plaintiff. This procedure should result in no prejudice to the severed plaintiffs, since the statute of limitations is tolled while a misjoined plaintiff’s case is pending. Additionally, dismissal of a plaintiff’s “duly commenced” case based solely on misjoinder and improper venue would constitute dismissal for a matter of form, bringing into play the provisions of section 15-1-69, which provides that the plaintiff may commence a new action for the same cause, at any time within one year. With regard to Judge Green’s holding that all five plaintiffs were properly before the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, the amended complaint is woefully inadequate in alleging sufficient information to establish venue. Also, it fails to comply with the requirements announced in Mangialardi. Therefore, the case is remanded with instructions to the trial court to dismiss, without prejudice, the four plaintiffs, leaving to them and their respective attorneys the decision of refiling in an appropriate venue, and to either dismiss, without prejudice, the claims of Larry Polk, or allow him a reasonable time, not exceeding 30 days, to file an amended complaint which complies with Mangialardi, and which properly establishes venue in the First Judicial District of Hinds County. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
