3M Co., et al. v. Green, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2003-IA-00476-SCT Linked Case(s): 2003-M-00476-SCT ; 2003-M-00476 |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-15-2005 Opinion Author: Dickinson, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Joinder - M.R.C.P. 20 Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., and Carlson, J. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, Graves and Randolph, JJ. Dissenting Author : Easley, J. Procedural History: Interlocutory Appeal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-03-2003 Appealed from: Claiborne County Circuit Court Judge: Lamar Pickard Disposition: Trial court denied of the 3M's motions for severance. Case Number: 2002-131 |
|
| Consolidated: Consolidated with 2003-IA-00617-SCT 3M Company f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, et al. v. Letha C. Glass, et al.; Jefferson Circuit Court; LC Case #: 2002-093; Ruling Date: 03/17/2003; Ruling Judge: Lamar Pickard | ||
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | 3M Company f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, et al. |
W. WAYNE DRINKWATER, JR.,
MARGARET OERTLING CUPPLES,
CHERI D. GREEN, JAMES ALTUS MCCULLOUGH, KACEY LEIGH KEETON, DAVID FRIEDERICH MARION, WALKER (BILL) JONES, III,
CHARLES STEPHEN STACK, JR.,
W. BRUCE WILLIAMS, KATRINA MAY HALL, THOMAS W. TYNER,
GRAYSON RANDOLPH LEWIS,
JAMES P. STREETMAN, III,
CHARLES R. WILBANKS, JR.,
CLYDE LAVEL NICHOLS, III,
BLAYNE THOMAS INGRAM,
WALTER C. MORRISON,
PATRICK R. BUCHANAN, W. MARK EDWARDS, RONALD G. PERESICH,
PATRICIA ANN DICKE, MEADE W. MITCHELL, PHIL B. ABERNETHY,
ALBEN NORRIS HOPKINS,
MARIANO JAVIER BARVIE’,
VINCENT RICHARD ALMERICO,
PAIGE CRAIG JONES, JOHN W. ROBINSON, KYLE STUART MORAN,
EDWIN S. GAULT, JR., BRANDY LENEE FAUGHT |
||
| Appellee: | Charles H. Green, et al. | STEPHEN W. MULLINS, ALWYN H. LUCKEY, HARVEY W. BARTON, SKIP EDWARD LYNCH |
|
|
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: | Joinder - M.R.C.P. 20 |
| Summary of the Facts: | The two complaints involved in these consolidated appeals contain general allegations of “silica-related” injury from exposure to “silica-containing dust.” Although the plaintiffs and defendants are identified in exhibits to the complaint, no particular plaintiff or defendant is identified anywhere within the body of the complaint. The exhibits were amended numerous times before settling upon 15 plaintiffs and 76 defendants in each case. 3M is one of the 76 defendants. The trial court denied the motions for severance, and 3M filed a motion seeking interlocutory appeal which the Supreme Court granted. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The plaintiffs concede that Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. v. Armond, 866 So.2d 1092 (Miss. 2004) and its progeny clearly prohibit Rule 20 joinder of the plaintiffs in this case. Because the plaintiffs fail to satisfy the requirements for joinder under Rule 20, the trial court’s denial of 3M’s motions is reversed. It is reasonable to expect counsel to know prior to filing suit the identity of each client, the defendant each client proposes to sue, the alleged harm committed by specific defendants against each client, and the location and period of time the harm was committed. Absent this basic information, it is unreasonable to expect that a defendant can prepare an appropriate defense to the complaint or provide a proper and complete response to discovery requests. Defendants argue that, because plaintiffs’ claims have no substance, the Supreme Court should dismiss them without prejudice. However, any determination that the claims have no substance must be made in the trial court in response to an appropriate motion. Upon remand, the trial court in each case shall sever the claims of each plaintiff. The trial court shall, within thirty days of the date of issuance of the mandate in these cases, enter an order setting an appropriate time limit – not exceeding sixty days from the date of the trial court’s order–for plaintiffs’ counsel to provide sufficient information to defendants and the trial court for a determination of transfer, where possible, to a court of appropriate venue. The trial court shall dismiss without prejudice each plaintiff who fails to timely furnish the information, and each plaintiff whose claims have no court of proper venue in Mississippi. Counsel for each plaintiff to be transferred is directed to file, prior to the transfer, an amended complaint for that plaintiff which discloses – at a minimum – the defendant or defendants being sued, the nature of the wrongful acts alleged against each defendant, and the place and period of time the wrongful acts are alleged to have occurred. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
