Both Karl Albert, et al. v. Allied Glove
Corporation, et al. and David Coleman, et al. v. A-Bex
Corporation, et al. involved multiple out-of-state
plaintiffs and multiple out-of-state defendants where the
cases had no direct connection to Mississippi. Both appeals
alleged that the Jefferson County Circuit Court erred in
dismissing cases with no real connection to Mississippi
under the revised joinder rules enacted in 2003. The Court
wrote, “We hold that the trial judge did not err in
dismissing without prejudice the out-of-state plaintiffs
whose causes of action accrued outside of Mississippi.”
The Court relied heavily on 2004 precedents
set in Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. v. Armond and Harold’s
Auto Parts, Inc., v. Mangialardi, in both of the
consolidated cases before it in 2006.
In the current cases, the Court noted that
the plaintiffs were neither residents of Mississippi nor did
they allege exposure to asbestos in the state. The Supreme
Court rejected arguments that district court improperly
applied the revised joinder rule to cases filed before the
revised rule went into effect, that the circuit court failed
to properly apply forum non conveniens or take measures to
protect the plaintiffs’ cases from dismissal, that the
circuit court violated the plaintiffs’ due process rights
under state and federal Constitutions, and that the circuit
court violated the plaintiffs’ rights under the equal
protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.
In upholding the retroactive application of
the revised joinder rule, the Court noted that “the Fifth
Circuit has similarly ruled ‘to the maximum extent possible,
the amended Rules should be given retroactive application.’”
The Court also stated plainly that “this is not a forum non
conveniens case. Rather, it is simply a Rule 20 joinder
issue. This court will continue to recognize the precedent
of Armond and Mangialardi and its application to all pending
cases in the State of Mississippi, which held plaintiffs may
not be joined under Rule 20 unless their claims are
connected by a distinct, litigable event. Armond, 866 So. 2d
at 1099. We have made expressly clear by this line of
evolving venue and joinder cases that we will no longer
tolerate the presence of cases which do not belong in
Mississippi.”
In rejecting the arguments other than
joinder, the Court noted that no plaintiff had shown any
harm from statutes of limitations having run out in other
states. In fact, the Court took special note in both
decisions that “neither Albert nor the other Joint
Plaintiffs have shown that they have attempted to file in
another jurisdiction and been barred from doing so.” The
Court also stated that the numerous hearings before the
circuit court showed that plaintiffs did indeed receive
appropriate due process.
Although two justices dissented in each of
the cases at hand, the Mississippi Supreme Court issued a
plain statement regarding judicial tourism in these opinions
that bodes well for business expansion in Mississippi:
“State and federal courts are not compelled to hear every
single claim that a litigant wishes to bring; our courts are
restrained by jurisdictional requirements. Albert has not
offered any reason why his case should be fixed in the
Mississippi court system other than he filed it here
originally. It has absolutely no place in our court system
in light of the changes in precedent and Rule 20.
“Albert has not demonstrated that our
refusal to hear claims over which we have no jurisdiction
has deprived him of access to a court in another
jurisdiction. Nor has Albert demonstrated any concrete
reason why the action should be maintained in Mississippi.
Accordingly, there is no constitutional violation.”
The trial court referred Mississippi cases
to appropriate state courts. Two justices dissented from
each opinion. Copies of each decision are available below.
