IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2003-IA-02459-SCT

3M COMPANY

v.

CURTIS LEE HINTON

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/25/2003

TRIAL JUDGE: HON. BILLY JOE LANDRUM

COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: JONES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: SCOTT WILLIAM BATES

WALKER W. (BILL) JONES, III

BARRY W. FORD

BARRY CLAYTON CAMPBELL

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: JOHN M. MONTGOMERY

WILLIAM H. LISTON

DUDLEY G. JORDAN

ZOLLIE C. STEAKLEY

TODD COKER

NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL

INJURY

DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED - 02/17/2005

MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

MANDATE ISSUED:

EN BANC.

CARLSON, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Upon the trial co urt’s entry of a Case Management Order in this mass tort case

involving numerous parties, 3M filed a petition for an interlocutory appeal, which we granted.

Finding error i

n the trial court’s Case Management Order, we reverse this order entered by the

Circuit Court of the Second Judicial District of Jones County and remand this case for

proceedings consistent with this opinion.2 PROCEEDINGS IN THE TRIAL COURT

¶2. In this case 115 plaintiffs sued 77 defendants for alleged asbestos-relate d injuries on

Jan uary 1, 2002, in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial District of Jones County, the Hon.

Billy Joe Landrum, presiding. As this case is in its initial stages, no depositions have been

taken, and while written discovery was served on the plaintiffs, responses have been limited and

incomplete.

¶3. On July 22, 2003, 3M, on the grounds that t he plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint

provided no details of the claims made against the various defendants, moved for entry of a

Case Management Order (“CMO”) which would have required each plaintiff to prov ide initial,

basic discovery. This CMO would have also provided the trial court with a basis to determine

severance or

joinder, venue and other necessary preliminary issues. 3M’s proposed CMO

would have likewise required each plaintiff to try his or her clai m s separately, unless the trial

court determined that the factual record supported joinder or consolidation as provided by

Miss. R. Civ. P. 20 and 42.

¶4. In response to 3M’s motion, th e plaintiffs proposed their own CMO. Under this CMO,

the plaintiffs would have unilat erally designated a trial group of up to twelve plaintiffs, whose

claims would then be tried to gether. 3M argued that the plaintiffs’ CMO required no factual

showing that the trial groups had sufficient factua l or legal commonality to satisfy Miss. R.

Civ. P. 20. The plaintiffs merely argued that this CMO had previously been used in another case

in another

county. On September 25, 2003, without conducting a hearing, the trial court

entered the plaintiffs’ proposed CMO, essentially without change.3

¶5. On October 17, 2003, 3M submitted a proposed order certifying the trial court’s ruling

on the CMO for interlocutory appeal. The trial court denied certification on October 28, 2003.

This Cour t thereafter granted 3M’s timely petition for interlocutory appeal. See M.R.A.P. 5.

DISCUSSION

¶6. On August 23, 2004, this Court decided Harol d’s Auto Parts, Inc. Mangialardi

, 889

So. 2d 493 (Miss. 2004). As in Mangialardi

, today’s case is a mass tort litigation case

concerning the joinder

of multiple plaintiffs against multiple defendants. M angialardi

controls the disposition of all issues raised in the case s u b judice. In Mangialardi we

determined that the plaintiffs failed to comply with Mis s. R. Civ. P. 8, 9, 10 and 11, and were,

theref ore, required to provide basic information prior to filing a complaint. We reach the same

conclusion here.

¶7. On Janua ry 13, 2005, we decided M S Life Ins. Co. v. Baker

, No. 2003-IA-01149-SCT,

2005 WL 67522 (Miss. 2005), a case involving 45 plaintiffs al leging claims of fraud against

51 defendants, holding that neither the plaintiffs nor the defendant had properly satisfied the

requirements of Miss. R. Civ. P. 20 to present a j oinable claim. Therefore, we remanded the

case to the trial court, requiring all par ties to “present substantial evidence demonstrating the

propriety or impropriety of joinder.” I d. at *6 (¶ 22). In the case sub judice and in

Mangialardi

, the plaintiffs submitted pleadings which did not, at the very least, include the

name or names of the defendants against whom each pl aintiff alleged a claim, the time and

location of exposure, and the medical condition caused by such exposure. This is a clear failure4

to comply with Rules 8, 9, 10, and 11, and without compliance with these basic pleading

requirements, we find that there is no need to move on to a Bake r analysis under Rule 20. In

Baker

, t hose plaintiffs named the defendant, named the time and location of the alleged fraud,

and alleged the damages that resulted from the alleged frau dulent credit insurance. Had the

Baker plaintiffs failed to comply with the basic requirements of Rules 8, 9, 10, and 11,

Mangialardi would have controlled in that case as well. Because we fin d that this case

involves a failure to comply with Miss. R. Civ. P. 8, 9, 10 and 11, we hold that the case sub

judice is distinguishable from Bakerand, therefore, follow Mangialardi

.

CONCLUSION

¶8. We reverse the trial court’s Sep tember 25, 2003, Case Management Order, and we

remand this case to the Circuit Court of the Second Ju dicial District of Jones County with the

following instructions: The trial court is directed to dismiss, without prejudice, the complaint

of each plaintiff who fails, within forty-five days of this C ourt’s mandate, to provide the

defendants and the trial court with sufficient information for such determination of joinder,

severance, venue and transfer if warranted. Such i nformation shall include, at minimum, the

name of the defendant or defendants against whom each plaintiff alleges a claim, the time and

location of exposure, and the medical condition caused by such exposure. The trial court shall

conduct any further proceedings in this case consistent with this opinion.

¶9. REVERSED AND REMANDED.

SMITH, C.J., WALLER AND COBB, P.J J., AND DICKINSON, J., CONCUR.

EASLEY, J., DISSENTS WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. GRAVES, J.,5

CONCURS IN PART AND DISSENTS IN PART WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN

OPINION. DIAZ AND RANDOLPH, JJ., NOT PARTICIPATING.