Lone Star Industries, Inc., et al. v. McGraw
| Docket Number: | 2010-IA-01005-SCT Linked Case(s): 2010-IA-01005-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-02-2012 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: Affirmed in Part; Reversed in Part and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Amended complaint - M.R.C.P. 15(a) - Court approval - M.R.C.P. 4(h) - M.R.C.P. 21 - Doctrine of election of remedies - Doctrine of judicial estoppel - Claim splitting Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson, P.J., Randolph, Lamar and Pierce, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Dickinson, P.J. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: King, J., Concurs in Part Without Separate Written Opinion Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Kitchens, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part Joined By 1: King, J. Procedural History: Interlocutory Appeal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-01-2010 Appealed from: Claiborne County Circuit Court Judge: Lamar Pickard Disposition: Denied the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, Motion to Strike Second Amended Complaint and Dismiss First Amended Complaint. Case Number: 2009-25 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Lone Star Industries, Inc., Specialty Sand Company, Pearl Sands Inc., Pearl Specialty Sands, Inc. and Dependable Abrasives, Inc. |
KIMBERLY P. MANGUM
DAVID A. BARFIELD
G. MARTIN STREET, JR.
W. WRIGHT HILL, JR.
CLYDE L. NICHOLS, III
WADE G. MANOR
J. SCOTT ROGERS
SILAS W. MCCHAREN
SANDRA D. BUCHANAN |
|
|
| Appellee: | Charles Larry McGraw and Nikki McGraw | DAVID NEIL MCCARTY R. ALLEN SMITH, JR. TIMOTHY W. PORTER PATRICK MALOUF JOHN T. GIVENS | ||
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 - Amended complaint - M.R.C.P. 15(a) - Court approval - M.R.C.P. 4(h) - M.R.C.P. 21 - Doctrine of election of remedies - Doctrine of judicial estoppel - Claim splitting |
| Summary of the Facts: | Charles McGraw filed a personal-injury action in the Circuit Court of Claiborne County against four sand suppliers: Clark Sand Company, Inc.; Mississippi Valley Silica Co. Inc.; Precision Packaging, Inc.; and Custom Aggregates and Grinding, Inc. McGraw alleged the four defendants’ sand caused his lung disease, silicosis. On the day of the trial, after the jury had heard the parties’ opening statements, the court recessed, and the parties reached a settlement agreement. On October 19, 2009, McGraw filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint to add his wife as a plaintiff and American Optical Corporation as an additional defendant. On December 4, 2009, McGraw filed an amended motion for leave to amend his complaint (First Amended Complaint) to modify his request to add four more defendants: Lonestar Industries, Inc.; Specialty Sand Company, Pearl Sands, Inc.; and Pearl Specialty Sand, Inc. On January 5, 2010, the trial court granted McGraw’s amended motion and allowed him to add the five new defendants to the complaint. The First Amended Complaint was filed on that date. On January 19, 2010, McGraw filed a Second Amended Complaint which added a sixth defendant: Dependable Abrasives, Inc., without seeking leave of court. The defendants filed a petition for interlocutory appeal which the Supreme Court granted. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Amended complaint “Freely given” in M.R.C.P. 15(a) means that if the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits. Based on Rule 15 and the relevant case law discussing amendments to pleadings, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting McGraw leave to file his First Amended Complaint. However, the trial court did abuse its discretion in allowing McGraw’s Second Amended Complaint, because McGraw failed to obtain court approval as required by Rule 15(a). The defendants argue that, because the defendants in the original complaint claimed the case was fully settled with McGraw at the close of trial on September 22, 2009, the trial court should have denied McGraw’s motion to amend his complaint filed on October 19, 2009. Therefore, the defendants allege that the suit ended on September 22 when the original parties announced a settlement agreement. However, only two of the defendants were dismissed by court orders, and none of the original defendants was dismissed with prejudice until after McGraw filed his first motion for leave to amend his complaint. McGraw filed his motion for leave to amend his complaint on October 19, 2009. In that filing, he added American Optical Corporation. On December 4, 2009, McGraw amended that complaint to include Lonestar Industries, Inc.; Specialty Sand Company; Pearl Sands, Inc.; and Pearl Specialty Sand, Inc. On January 5, 2010, the trial court issued an order allowing McGraw to file his First Amended Complaint. Those five defendants were properly served within the 120-day period allowed by M.R.C.P. 4(h). McGraw’s Second Amended Complaint was improper, since McGraw failed to obtain leave of court to add the sixth defendant, Dependable Abrasives, Inc. The trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to strike the Second Amended Complaint because it failed to read Rule 15 in conjunction with M.R.C.P. 21, which requires court approval to amend a second complaint that adds new defendants. Issue 2: Doctrine of election of remedies The doctrine of election of remedies does not apply in the present case because it requires two separate actions filed in different courts. This doctrine has three elements: the existence of two or more remedies, the inconsistency between remedies, and a choice of one of them. The defendants allege that the present case actually is two cases, because the original four defendants settled at trial. However, none of the parties was dismissed from the case until after McGraw filed his motion for leave to amend the complaint. Further, the trial court granted this motion on January 5, 2010, which added all new defendants, with the exclusion of Dependable Abrasives, Inc. This case has only one cause number and was filed in one court. Additionally, McGraw alleges substantially the same injuries against all defendants. This consistency of theories negates the use of the doctrine and renders it inapplicable. Issue 3: Doctrine of judicial estoppel Judicial estoppels is a doctrine of law applied by a trial court to a situation where a party asserts one position in a prior action or pleading but then seeks to take a contrary position to the detriment of the party opposite. The defendants claim that, because McGraw gave conflicting testimony at separate depositions, he should be estopped from bringing his amended claim. McGraw should not be estopped, because this is not a separate action. Even if this was a separate action, the doctrine of judicial estoppel generally does not apply to false statements which were made without full knowledge of the applicable facts. During his second deposition, McGraw stated that his illness impaired his ability to tell the facts in the first deposition. Although McGraw’s actions and his attorney’s actions are questionable, silicosis often can be attributed to several different silica manufacturers, and there is no evidence to indicate that McGraw’s statements were willfully false. Issue 4: Claim splitting There can be no claim-splitting in the present case, because there has been only one complaint. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
