Mississippi Supreme Court Issues New Rule 20 Joinder Decisions
In two opinions issued on November 30th, the Mississippi Supreme Court handed down the most recent installments in its longstanding campaign to clarify the rules governing joinder of plaintiffs in mass tort cases. What first began as an overhaul of joinder jurisprudence in Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. v. Armond, 866 So.2d 1092 (Miss. 2004) has since become a series of attempts to emphasize the decision’s meaning and reach. In Albert v. Allied Glove Corp., (No. 2005-CA-01022-SCT) and Coleman v. A-Bex Corporation (No. 2005-CA-01022-SCT) the Court considered two appeals raising both the retroactive application of its changes to Miss. R. Civ. P. 20 and the forum non conveniens doctrine.
The plaintiff in Albert is a non-resident of Mississippi who claimed asbestos exposure outside the state. Albert was one of 259 plaintiffs alleging tort and product liability theories against approximately 98 defendants in Jefferson County Circuit Court. Following the defendants’ filing of a Mangialardi motion (claiming the plaintiffs had failed to satisfy the pleading requirements for mass tort cases as set forth in Harold’s Auto Parts, Inc. v. Mangialardi, 889 So.2d 493 (Miss. 2004)) the trial court dismissed Albert’s claims on grounds that he was not a Mississippi resident and was not exposed to asbestos within the state. On appeal Albert challenged the trial court’s rulings through several assignments of error.
Albert argued that the trial court improperly applied the changes articulated in Armond and Mangialardi – handed down in 2004 -- retroactively to his case, filed in 2000. This improper retroactive application, Albert argued, violated the forum non conveniens doctrine and denied him the ability to pursue his claims outside Mississippi because of “statutes of limitation concerns or changes in law.” Albert, ¶ 7. Chief Justice Smith, writing for the majority, confirmed that the joinder and pleading guidelines set forth in Armond and Mangialardi must be applied retroactively. The Court further found that the forum non conveniens doctrine did not apply to the dismissal of Albert’s claims.
Chief Justice Smith also rejected Albert and Coleman’s claims of constitutional violations. The Court held that the plaintiffs had been afforded "ample due process" in the trial Court because they were allowed to extensively brief their arguments and were allowed the benefit of three separate hearings.
Albert and Coleman reflect the Court’s continued opposition to mass tort claims by out-of-state residents with out-of-state exposure being heard by Mississippi courts. Albert recounts Armond and Mangialardi as making “expressly clear” that the Court will “no longer tolerate the presence of cases which do not belong in Mississippi.” Albert, ¶ 8.
Justice Diaz wrote almost identical dissents in which he argued that the majority was effectively overturning forum non conveniens precedent. He stated that "the complexity of this case, and the current state of our mass tort system, is not as 'simple' as the majority would wish it." Albert, ¶ 30. In his view the majority improperly considered the issues raised by the parties as requiring analysis pursuant to Miss. R. Civ. P. 20 instead of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. He went on to state that the Court has "continually failed to craft a clear and understandable doctrine regarding joinder" and that "joinder was broken pre-Armond and it remains broken today, a tangled web of clashing precedent and theory." Coleman, ¶ 21. He suggested that the most equitable result would be to hold that the existence of a viable alternate forum is a prerequisite to dismissal pursuant to forum non conveniens.
The Mississippi Supreme Court's decisions in Albert and Coleman reiterate the reasoning developed in prior joinder cases and conclusively answer any question regarding the retroactivity of the Court's recent Rule 20 cases. Because the dissent suggests the rulings to be in conflict with past forum non conveniens precedent, in the future the Court may choose to address the doctrine in the context of Janssen and its progeny. In the meantime, trial courts have the benefit of a clear and defined set of rules to guide disposition of Rule 20 and Mangialardi motions in cases filed prior to 2004.
