I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 6 - CA- 0 1 6 2 1 - S CT CO NSOLI DATED W I TH 2 0 0 6 - CA- 0 1 6 2 5 - S CT CH OC TAW

, I NC . , ET AL.
v. CA M P BEL L - CHERR Y-HAR RI S ON- DA VI SAN D DOVE
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 08/ 17/ 2006 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. LE E J
. HOW ARD COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: NOX UBEE COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN TS: FRED K RU TZ EDW I N S. GAU LT , J R. DANI E L J
. M UL HOL L AND BRI AN BA RRY HA NN ULA RONALD G. P ERE S I CH W
. M AR K E DW AR DS RANDI P ERE S I CH M UEL LE R J OHANN A M AL BR OUGH Mc M UL L AN A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L E E S : D E W IT T T . H IC K S , J R
. W I LL I AM THOM AS C OOPE R S T E VE M c CO NNI CO NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 10/ 04/ 2007 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

B E F O R E W A L L E R , P . J. , E A SL E Y A N D C A R L SO N , JJ. EAS LEY, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT:

PROCEDU RAL H I S TORY AND FACTS

### Here, CCH DD was defend ed at trial on the motio n for sanctio ns, as well as in th is 1 

### a pp e a lbytheMi s s i s s ipp il aw f i rmGh ol s on , Hi c ks & N i c ho l s , P. A.

2 ¶ 1
. O n D e c e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 2 , C a m p b e ll- C h e rr y -H a rr is o n -D a v is -D o v e , P .C ., (C C H D D ), a T exas l aw f

i r m , f i l ed i t s or i gi nal compl ai nt s i n B a ldw in , e t a l. v . G r a c o E n te r p r is e s, I n c ., e t a l. , C aus e N o. 2002- 429, on behal f of 247 pl ai nt i f

f s , and P rin ce, et al

. v. P ear l

R i ver S a n d & G ra v e l Co ., In c ., e t a l. , C ause N o. 20 02 -430, o n b ehalf of 4, 20 0 p l ai nti ff

s,
c o llec tiv e ly th e “ C C H D D P lain tiffs,” in th e C irc u it C o u rt o f N o x u b e e C o u n ty , M iss iss ip p i,
a g a i n s t1 3 1 u n r e l a t e d d e f e n d a n t s f

o ra l l e g e d p e r s o n a l i n

j u r i e s s u f

f e r e d b y t h e CC HDD P l a i n t i f f s ’ e x p o s u r e t o s i l i c a . T h e l a ws u i t s we r e f i l e d i n t h e c i r c u i tc o u r tb y t h e CC HDD Pl ai nt i f f s ’ M i s s i s s i ppi couns el , W i l l i am H
. L i s t on, E s q. , L i s t on & L anca s t er . A m ended 1 compl ai nt s w er e f

i l ed i n t he ci r cui tcour ton M ar ch 24, 2003, by A t t orney Li s t on. ¶2
. T he C CH D D Pl a i nt i f f s ’ c a s e s w er e s ubs equent l y, s ucce s s f ul l y r emoved by t he D e fe n d a n ts to th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt fo r th e S o u th e rn D ist ri c t o f M iss iss ip p i. T h ere after, the c ase s w ere rem o v ed b y the U n it e d S tate s D istri ct C o u rtfor the S o u thern D i s t r i ctof

M i s s i s s i ppi t o the U ni t ed D i s t r i ctCourtf orthe Sout hern D i s t r i ctof T exas , w hi ch
w a s h a n d lin g a m u lti -d istric t li tig a tio n (M D L ) d o c k e t fo r silic o s is c laim s, th e H o n o ra b le J ani s G r aham Ja ck, D i s t r i ctC our tJ udge, pr es i di ng. T he Pl ai nt i f f s w ho w er e r emoved t o the M D L f e de r a l c ou r t , i nc l ud i ng the CC H D D Pl a i nt i f f s , o bj e c t e d t o t he r e mova l b a s e d on a n al l eged l ack of

s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on. J udge Ja ck r es erved rul i ng on t he l ack of s ubj ect
m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n c la im , al l owi ng s om e i ni t i aldi s c ov e r y a s t o t he Pl ai nt i f f s ’ c l ai m s and j uri s di ct i on .

### Th e plaintiffs that remain ed after th e initial d ismissal also were subsequently 2 

### dis mi ss ed. 3 ¶3. A ft er con du ct i ng a l engt hy evi dent i ary hear i ng, J udge J ackc o nc l ude d t hat s he l ac ke d j ur i s di c t i on overm os tof t he l aw s ui t s , i ncl udi ng all o f the C C H D D Pl ai nt i f f s , t hat h a d b e e n fi le d in s ta te c o u rt a n d re m o v e d to th e M D L fe d e ra l c o u rt . See I n re Sili ca P r oduct s L iabilit y Liti gati on , 398 F. Supp
. 2 d 56 3 ( S. D
. T ex. 2005)
. B ef or e J udge J ack
r emanded t he C C H D D Pl ai nt i f f s t o the M i s s i s s i ppi s t at e courton J une 30, 2005, forl ack of
s u b je c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n , she crit i ci z ed the op i n i on s sup p orti n g th e sil i cosi s cl aim s, des pite heradm itted lack of s ubj ect m atterj uri

s di cti on to r enderany r uling as to the cas es
e xc e pt to r e m and
. ¶4. O nce the C C H D D Pl ai nt i f f s w er e r emanded t o M i s s i s s i ppi st at e cour t , C C H D D , on O ct ober14, 2005, f

i l ed a m ot i on f

orde t erm i nat i on of

s t atus pur s uantt o thi s C our t ’ s hol di ng in H ar old’s A uto P ar t

s, I nc. v. Mangi alar di , 889 So. 2d 493 ( M i s s . 2004)
. C C H D D s ought t he C our t ’ s gui dance r egar di ng t he then- r ece ntchange s i n the l aw as t o venue a nd j oi nder after Mangi alar di
. ( T he C C H D D Pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed s ui tbef

or e Mang ial

ar diw as de ci ded by t hi s C our t . ) C C H D D r eques t ed gui dance on how t o ha ndl e t he s ever ance and tr ans f erof t he P la in tif fs ’ c la im s . By ag r e e m e nt be t wee n t he par t i e s , on a n ore ten u s m ot i on t o t he t ri al
c our t , m os t of

t he Pl ai nt i f

f s ’ c l ai m s ag ai ns t t he D e f e ndant s were di s m i s s e d wi t hout prej udi ce a n d

e a c h p a rty ag re e d

to b e a r its o w n c o sts . T he agr eed or derw as ent er ed by 2 t he C i r cui tC our tof

N oxubee Count y on D ece m ber14, 2005. T he ag reed order sp e c ifica lly
s t at ed:

### Th e Defen dants didno t seek san ction s ag ainst th e CC HD D P laintiffs’ lo cal counsel, 3 

### Listo n & Lancaster. Of the 131 origin al defend ants, the d efend ants/ap pellees listedin th is appe alof the de nia l of

themotions for

s anc ti ons areas fol lows : Choc taw, Inc. ; Cl ar k Sand Co., Inc .; Clar

k Sale s & Rent al s, Inc .; Cle mc o Indus trie s Cor porati on; Cus tom

Aggre gat es & Grinding, Inc .; Eas te rn Sa fe ty Equipme nt Co. , Inc. ; F & S Abrasives, Inc. ; Fl exc o Pro du cts, Inc.; H ueySto ckstill, In c.; Humble S andCo ., Inc. d/b/a H umb le S and& Grav el, Inc.; In gerso ll-Ran d C omp any ; Lo ckh eed M artinCo rpo ration ; Parmelee In du stries, Inc.; P.K. Linds ay Com

pany; Pre ci si on Pac king, Inc . f /k/ a Qui kre teMat erials, Inc.; Standard Equip ment C o., In c.; andEmp ire Ab rasive E qu ipment Co rpo ration
. 4 I T I S, TH E R E FO R E , O R D E R E D A N D A D J U D G E D thata l l D ef endant s be and t he s ame ar e her eby di s m i s s ed w i t houtpr ej udi ce a s t o the cl ai m s of t he Pl ai nt i f f s l i s t ed i n the at t ache d Exhi bi t“A , ” w i t h e a c h p a r t y to b e a rit

s o wn cost s. (E m p h asis ad d ed ). ¶5
. D es pi t e t he agr eementt o be a rthe i ro w n c os t s , s ome of t he 131 def

endant s , on D ece m ber19, 2005, f

i l ed mot i ons f

ors anct i ons i n t he C i r cui tC our tof N oxubee Count y, al l egi ng t hatC C H D D f r i vol ous l y f

i l ed the tw o s ui t s . T he D ef endant s s oughts anct i ons 3 pur s uantt o t he Li t i gat i on A ccount abi l i t y A cto f 198 8, M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at i on S e c tio n 1 1 -5 5 -1 , et

s eq . T h e s u b s t a n c e o f

t h e De f e n d a n t s ’ a l l e g a t i o n s wa s t h a tt h e CC HDD Pl ai nt i f f s l acke d any di agnos es to sust ai n t hei rcl ai m s of s i l i ca- r el at ed di s eas e, and the
m edical report s subm i t t ed b y C C H D D w ere, i n eff ect , a sham
. C C H D D fil ed i t s r espon se t o t he al l egat i ons . A hear i ng on t he mot i ons f ors anct i ons w as hel d on M ar ch 26, 2006, by th e c irc u it c o u rt, th e H o n o ra b le L e e J. H o w a rd , p re sid in g . T h e c irc u it co u rt re se rv e d its
ru l i n g a tt h e h e a r i n g , s u b s e q u e n t l y e n t e r i n g a n o r d e rd e n y i n g th e mo t i o n s f o rs a n c t i o n s . On

### The De fe ndant s rai senume rous as si gnme nts of e rror that al l ar e s ubst antia lly ti ed 4 

### to t he di sc uss ion of

theis sueof whe the r the trial co urt e rr ed in denying themotions for sanctio ns. Mississip pi C od e Anno tated S ection11 -55 -3(a) (R ev. 2 00 2) p rov ides: 5 

### "Wit hout s ubst antia l j ustif

ic ation, " when us ed wi th ref er enc e t o any a ction, cl ai m, def ens e or a ppea l, including without limi tati on any motion, me ans that it is frivo lou s, gro un dless infact or in law, o r vex atiou s, as de te rmi ned by t he cour t. (Em phas is adde d). 5 J ul y 17, 2006, t he ci r cui tcour tent er ed i t s or der s denyi ng t he D ef endant s ’ m ot i on s f

or
s a n c tio n s “ in its e n tir e ty .” ¶6. T he D ef

end ants n ow ap peal t o t hi s C our t . T hi s C our tgr ant ed the part i es ’ agr eed
m ot i on t o cons ol i dat e the ca s es f orappea l
. T he di s pos i t i ve i s s ue t hatw e addr es s on appea l i s: w hethert he tr i al co u rte rr ed in den ying t he D efendan t s’ m oti on s f or sanct i on s agai nst C C H D D undert he Li t i gat i on A ccount abi l i ty A ctof 1988. T he D ef

endant s al s o, 4 al t ernat i vel y, r ai s e the i s s ue of w hethert he tr i al cour terr ed i n f i nd i ng t hatt he r ecor d w as
w el l -devel op ed an d n ot al l ow i ng ad dit i on al d i scovery regar ding t he m oti on s f or sanct i on s. DI S CU S S I ON I. ¶7
. “M i s s . Code A nn. § 11- 55- 3( a) pr ovi des t hata cl ai m i s w i t hout s ubs t ant i al j us t i f i cat i on w hen i ti s ‘ f

r i vol ous , gr oundl es s i n factori n l aw , orvexat i ous , as det erm i ned b y the c o u rt . ’” Scr uggs v. Sater f iel , 6 9 3 S o . 2 d 9 2 4 , 9 2 7 (M iss. 19 9 7 ). T h is C o u rt 5
exam i nes w hethera cl ai m i s f ri vo l ou s as f

oll ow s:

### 6

T o d eterm ine w h ethe r a c lai m is f ri v o lou s p u rsua n t t o the s tatu te, th is C o u rt lo o k s to th e d e fi n itio n o f " fr iv o lo u s " fo u n d in M .R .C .P . 1 1
. L eaf R i ver Forest P ro d u c ts, In c . v. D e a k le , 661 So. 2d 188, 197 ( M i s s . 1995). Forpurpos es of R u le 1 1 , a c la im is fr iv o lo u s " o n ly w h e n , objecti vel y s peaki ng, t he pl eade ror m ovanthas no hope of s uccess . " Steve ns v. L ake , 615 So. 2d 1177, 1184 ( M i ss. 1 993), quot i ng T r i con Metal

s & Ser vices, I

nc. v. T opp , 537 So. 2d 1 3 3 1 , 1 3 3 5 (M iss . 1 9 8 9 ); Sm ith v. Malouf , 59 7 S o. 2d 12 99 , 13 03 (M i ss. 1 9 9 2 ) (ap p lying R u le 1 1 d efinit ion to L it igation A cc o u n tabili ty A ct co n text). "T h o u g h a c a se m a y b e w e a k o r ' lig h t-h e a d e d ,' th a t is n o t su ffic ien t to lab e l it fri v o lou s. " D e a k le , 6 6 1 S o . 2 d a t 1 9 5 ; N i c hol s v. Munn , 565 So. 2d 1132, 1 1 3 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 ). W il s on v. G r eyhound B us Lines , 830 So. 2d 1151, 1159 ( M i s s . 2002) ( quot i ng Scr uggs , 693 S o . 2 d a t9 2 7 ) ( e mp h a s i s a d d e d )
. Th u s , s a n c t i o n s a r e n o tj u s t i f i e d i f t h e p l a i n t i f

f h a d s o me h o p e o f s u c c e s s w h e n th e c la im w a s fi le d
. B ean v. B rou ssard , 58 7 S o. 2d 90 8, 91 2 (M i ss. 1 9 9 1 ); s ee W

il s on , 8 30 S o. 2 d at1 15 9. “T o d eem a qu est i on of l aw ‘f ri vo l ou s, groun dles s i n factor i n law , or vex at i ou s’ m erel y b ecause ther e i s no e xi s t i ng M i s s i s s i ppi l aw on t he
su b jec t w o u ld h a v e a c h illin g e ff e c t o n a ll litig a tio n in v o lv in g q u e s tio n s o f f ir s t im p re s s io n .” Scr uggs , 6 9 3 S o . 2 d at 92 7 (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶8. “The i m pos i t i on of s anct i ons r ai s es a que s t i on of l aw , the s t andar d of

r evi ew of w hi ch i s de novo. ” I

n re E s tate of

L adnerv. L adner , 909 So. 2d 1051, 1055 ( M i s s . 2004) ( ci t i ng Am ike rv. D r ugs ForLes s, I nc . , 7 9 6 S o . 2 d 94 2 , 94 5 -46 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 )). H o w ev er, th is C o u rt h a s a lso h e ld , “ W h e n rev iew in g a d e c isio n reg a rd in g the im p o sitio n o f sa n c tio n s p u rsu a n t to th e L itig a tio n A c c o u n ta b ility A c t, this Court is lim ited to cons ider ati on of w hetherthe tr ial
cour t abu s ed it

s dis cr eti on . ” Scr uggs , 693 So. 2d at927 ( ci t i ng D e a k le , 661 So. 2d at197;

### An ext ens ivenumbe r of c as es s tatethat

the prope r st andard of

re vie w re garding t

he 6 

### im posi ti on of s anc ti ons i s a buseof di sc re ti on. In Wil son , 830 So. 2d at

1 159, theCourt ackn ow ledg ed ab use o f discretio n as th e app rop riate stand ard o f review , stating : “In b oth Scruggsand Wheeler

we were call ed upon to dete rm inewhethe r thetria l c ourt ' s award of sanctions purs uant

to t he Li ti gation Acc ounta

bil it y Act was an a

buseof di sc re ti on.”Als o, in Fo ster v. Ro ss , 8 04 S o. 2d1 01 8, 10 22 (M iss. 2 00 2), the Co urt pro vid ed th e app rop riate st andard of

re vie w, hol ding: “When rev ie wing a dec is ion regarding theim posi ti on of sanctions purs uant

to t he Li ti gation Accountabi li ty Ac t, thi s Cour t i s l im it ed t o a cons ide rati on of whe the r the tri alcourt a buse d it s di sc re ti on.”(c it ations omi tt ed)
. Subsec ti on (2) of Mis si ss ippiCode Annotat ed Sec ti on 11-55-5 is ref er re d to as the 7 

### “ s a f e har bo r ” prov i s i onbyCC HD D. 7 Ja ckson Cou n t

y S ch oo l B oa rd v. O sborn , 6 0 5 S o . 2 d 7 3 1 , 7 3 5 (M iss . 1 9 9 2 )) (e m p h a sis ad d ed ). 6 ¶ 9
. M iss iss ip p i C o d e A n n o tate d S e c tio n 1 1 -5 5 -5 (1 )-( 3 ) (20 0 7 ) pro v ide s in p e rtin e n t p a rt: A sses sm ent of

at t orney fees and co st s agai nstat t orney o r par t y for m eri t l ess a c tio n , cla im o r d e fe n se , u n w a rra n ted d e lay , o r u n n e c e ss a ry p ro c e e d in g s[:] ( 1) E xceptas ot herw i s e pr ovi ded i n t hi s chapt er , i n any ci vi l act i on c o m m e n c e d o r a p p e a led in a n y c o u rt o f re c o rd in th is s tate , the c o u rt sh a ll aw ard, as partof i t s j ud gm ent and i n ad dit ion to an y o t her cost s ot herw i se a ss e ss e d , rea so n a b le a tto rn e y ' s fe e s a n d co sts a g a in st a n y p a rty o r a tto rn e y if t he court , upon t he m oti on o f a ny par t y oron i t s ow n m ot i on, f i nds thatan a tto rn e y o r p a rty b ro u g h t an a c tio n , o r a ss e rte d a n y c laim o r d e fe n se , tha t is w i t ho ut s ub st anti al j ust i fi cat i on , or that the acti on , or any c l ai m or defense as s er t ed, w as i nt erpos ed f ordel ay orhar as s m ent , or i f i tf i nds thatan att orney orpar t y unnece s s ar i l y expanded t he proc eedi ngs by ot heri m pr operconduct i ncl udi ng, butnotl i m i t ed t o, abus e of di s co ve r y pr ocedur es avai l abl e underthe M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of

C i vi l Pr ocedur e. (2 ) N o a tto rn e y ' s fe e s o r c o sts s h a ll b e a ss e ss e d if a v o lu n tar y d ism iss a l is f i l ed as t o any ac t i on, cl ai m o rdef ens e w i t hi n a r eas onabl e t i m e af t erthe a tto rn e y o r p a rty filing th e a c tio n , cla im o r d e fe n se k n o w s o r re a so n a b ly s houl d ha ve know n thati tw oul d notpr evai l on the ac t i on, cl ai m ordef ens e. 7

### The c ourt in I n re Joint

E as tern & Souther n D is tr i ct s A s bes tos L iti

gati on 

### also 8 

### went on to examine in det ai l thecompl aints ass oci at ed with the proc es s, stating, “ A numbe r of stu dies h ave sh own th at some p laintiffs' d o ctors co nsistently o ver-d iagn ose as bes tos -r el at ed c onditions .” 237 F. Supp. 2d at309 

### . 8 ( 3) W hen a c our tde t erm i nes r eas onabl e att orney' s f ees orcos t s s houl d be asses sed, i tshal l asses s the p aym ent againstthe offendi ng att orneys or part i es, o r b o th , an d in its d isc re tio n m a y a llo c a te th e p a y m e n t a m o n g th e m , as it det erm i nes m os tj us t , and may as s ess t he ful l amount orany port i on t o any of f endi ng at t or ney orpar t y. ¶ 1 0
. T h e D e fe n d a n ts a rg u e th a t C C H D D ’s s c re e n in g p ro c e ss w a s a d e v ice d e sig n e d to g e n e ra te u n fo u n d e d c laim s. C C H D D c o n te n d s th a t it s s c re e n in g p ro c e ss w a s w e llest abli shed an d thati ti s a m echan i sm t hat has been u sed foryears i n the f i el d o f m ass t ort s, ci t i ng Findle

y v. Tr us te e s of

the Manv il

le Pers ona l

I nj ur y Se ttle m e nt

Tr ust (I n r e Jo int Eas te r n & Sout

he r n D is tr i c t

s Asb e s tos Li ti

ga ti on) , 237 F
. S upp. 2d 297, 309 ( D
. N
. Y
. 2002) ( “C l ai m ant s t oday ar e di agnose d l ar gel y t hr ough pl ai nt i f f
- l aw yerarr anged mas s s cr eeni ng p ro g ra m s ta rg e tin g p o ss ib ly a sb e sto s-e x p o se d w o rk e rs a n d a ttrac tio n o f p o ten tial c laim a n ts thro u g h th e m ass m ed ia. T h e p rog ram s rely a lm o st solely o n ch est x -ray s an d p ro-p lai n ti ff readers t o ident i fy the i njur ed. ”). T od ay, w e are not as ked t o d evis e an alt ernat i ve p rocess 8 to the m ass x -ray scre en ing p roc ess; w e a re o n ly a sk ed to d ec ide w h ethe r Jud g e H o w ard
err ed i n f

i ndi ng t hatC C H D D ’ s conductw as nots anct i onabl e pur s uantt o t he Li t i gat i on A c c o u n tab ili ty A c t. ¶11. T o de t erm i ne w hethera n a t t orney’ s c onductw as s anct i on able, w e m ustfocus on
w h e th e r t h e a tto rn e y ’s c o n d u c t w a s o b je c tio n a b ly re a s o n a b le
. See W il s on , 830 So. 2d at 1 1 5 9 . H e re , w e m u st sta rt o u r an a ly sis w ith the p ro c e ss C C H D D u n d e rto o k to s c re e n th e ir

### Sil ic osi s i s a dis abl ing, nonre ver sibleand s ome time s fata l lung di se as e c aus ed by 9 

### ov erexp osure to respirab le crystallin e silica. U.S . Dep t. of L abo r andthe N ation al Institute of Oc cupati onalSaf

ety and He alth, Pre venting Si li cos is (1996)
. NIOSH denot es the Nationa l Instit utefor Occ upationa l Sa fe ty and Hea lt h, a U.S. 10 

### fe deralage ncy, part of

theCenter s f

or Di se as e ControlandP reventi on (CDC) , whi ch con du cts research andmakes recommen datio ns fo r the p reventionof w ork -related d isease andinjury. Seehttp ://www.cd c.go v/n iosh .html. A B-rea der

is a doc tor

ce rtif ie d by NIOSH to ide nti fy thepre se nceof a sbe st os- and silic a- r el at ed d isease precursors o n ch est x-ray s. See Gibs on v. WorkersCompens ation Appeal Bd. , 861 A. 2d 938, 942 n. 4 (Pa . 2004)
. 9 cl i ent s and thei rr el i ance on t he s cr eeni ng pr oces s bef or e f i l i ng s ui t . C C H D D es t abli shed
c r i t e r i a b a s e d o n a me t h o d o l o g y f o rd i a g n o s i n g s i l i c o s i s t o s c r e e n p o t e n t i a l c l i e n t s . CC HDD 9
re tain e d a s c re e n in g c o m p a n y , N & M , In c ., to h a n d le th e sc re e n in g p ro c e ss so C C H D D c o u ld be det ache d f

r om t he di agnos i s . N & M w as i nf or m ed thatC C H D D w ou l d onl y r epr es ent p e r s o n s w h o m e tt h e e s t a b l i s h e d c r i t e r i a C C H D D p r o v i d e d t o N & M. ¶ 1 2
. Bi l l y H. Da v i s , J r . , c o u n s e l f o rth e C CH DD P l a i n t i f

f s , a n d s h a r e h o l d e ri n t h e CC HDD l aw f i r m , pr ovi ded an a f

f i davi tdet ai l i ng the r equi r ed cr i t er i a. I n hi s af f i davi t , D avi s s t at ed t hatN & M w as r equi r ed t o adher e t o a s cr eeni ng pr oces s t hats peci f i ed thateac h pot ent i al cli en t hav e: (1) a t l ea st tw o y ea rs of sil ica e x p o su re g en era ll y o cc u rri n g b efo re 1 9 8 0 ; ( 2 ) a pos i t i ve B
- r ead by a N I O SH cert i f i ed B
- r eade r ; ( 3) a phys i cal exam and pul m onary f unct i on t es t ; and ( 4) a di agnos i s of s i l i cos i s by a qual i f

i ed phys i ci an. N & M w as l i censed by the 10 S ta te o f M is s is s ip p i to p e rf

o rm x -r a y s . N & M in fo rm e d C C H D D th a t R a y H a rr o n , M .D ., w oul d per f

or m the phys i cal e xam and a “B
- r ead” on t he i ndi vi dual s s cr eene d by N & M
. T he i ndi vi dual s w i t h a pos i t i ve B
- r ead w oul d t hen have a phys i cal exam and pul m onary f unct i on

### Dr
. Ge orgeMart i nd a l e is sue d a di a gn os i s of s i l i c os i s f

or m anyof theCC HD D 11 

### Plaintif fs as thesec ond B-re ade r. Dr. Martinda lelat er withdrew hi s di agnos es , c laim ing t hat he d id n ot intendto d iagn osis silico sis. CC HD D claimedthat it w as un aware o f this. Acco rdin g to a letter from D r. Martind ale to Billy H. D avis, E sq., C ampb ell Ch erry H arris Davi s and Dove, dat ed Marc h 25, 2005, Dr. Martindal e infor me d Att orne y Davi s regarding the b ackg roundan d scop e o f h is serv ices p rov idedto N &M as a B-read er. Dr. M artind ale stated that

he wa s hire d by N&M, and he ne it her had any cont ac t wi th any attor ney f rom CCHDD nor any Def

endant’ s att orne y conc er

ning hi s di agnos es until h e w as subpoe nae d by a def ens e attor ney in Oct ober

2004. Acc ording to Dr . Martinda le , heneve r inte nded on being des ignate d as a “di agnos ing physi ci an”or be ing depose d. Dr . Martinda lest at ed that al l h i s re c ords w e r e t

ur ne d ov e r t o thes c r e e ningc om

panythat h i r e d hi m , N&M. The Def endants ci teDr
. Martindal e’ s re cantati on a s grounds t o grant the motions for

sanctions a gai ns t CC HD D. 10 t e s tp e r f o r me d
. Th e x - r a y s a n d t h e o c c u p a t i o n a l h i s t o r y i n f o r ma t i o n o n t h o s e p o s i t i v e Bre a d s w o u ld th e n b e p ro v id e d t o a s e c o n d B -r e a d e r f o r a n o th e r B -r e a d in g . If p o s itiv e , a qu al i fi ed phys i ci an w oul d de t erm i ne w hethere ach i ndi vi dual ha d s i l i cos i s w i t hi n a
r eas onabl e degr ee of

m edi cal cert ai nt y. 11 ¶ 1 3
. C C H D D h a d n o c o n tac t w ith th e p h y sic ian s, u sin g N & M a s a b a rrie r b e tw e e n itse lf and t he f i ndi ngs and di agnos es . N & M w as pai d foreach pos i t i ve i ndi vi dual
. H ow ever , t he p h y s i c i a n s we r e p a i d r e g a r d l e s s o f wh e t h e rt h e d i a g n o s i s wa s p o s i t i v e . M a n y o f t h e CC HDD P lain tiffs a lso h a d b e e n p re v io u sly d iag n o se d w ith as b e sto sis
. T h e D e fe n d a n ts a rg u e th a t it is virtu all y im p o ssible fo r the a sb esto sis cli en ts t o a lso b e d iagn o sed w ith sil icos is. H o w ev er, C C H D D m ai nt ai ns t hatal l t he C C H D D Pl ai nt i f f s w er e s ubj ect ed t o a new s cr eeni ng f or
s i l i cos i s , f

ol l ow i ng t he s cr eeni ng pr oces s s t at ed above
. C C H D D al s o cont ends t hatt he D efendan t s do n ot ci t e any i nd i vidual plai nti ff w ho do es not have si l i cosi s.

### 11

¶1 4
. Ju d g e H o w a rd re n d ere d th e follow ing fi n d ing s of fact an d co n clu sio n o f la w in
s uppor tof

hi s rul i ng, s t at i ng: ( 1) T he C our tf

i nds t hatt he cl ai m s C C H D D fi l ed i n t hi s l aw s ui tw er e not br oug ht wi thout s ub s ta nt ia l j us ti f i c ati on o rf

orde lay orhar as s m e nt , and thus s a nc t i on s a r e no twarr a nt e d un de rthe M i s s i s s i pp i Acc ou nt a bi l i t y A c t . M I SS. C O D E A N N
. § 11- 55- 5 ( 2002)
. T he C our tf i nds thatthe f

act or s t o be w ei ghed w hen cons i der i ng w hethert o aw ar d sanct i ons do nots uppor tan aw ar d of san cti o n s h ere . M IS S
. C O D E A N N
. § 1 1 -55 -7 (a -k) (2 0 0 2 ). ( 2) T he C our tf

i nds f ur t hert hat , att he t i m e thi s l aw s ui tw as f i l ed, M issi ssipp i had n o fi rm rule reg ard ing the a m o u n t of p re-su itd isco v ery re q u ire d o f a p lain tiff. T h e C o u rt fin d s th a t s ancti ons ar e not w ar r anted t

hat w o u ld h o ld C C HD D to a s ta n da r d

th a t h a d n o t b e e n a do

p te d a t th e time C C H D D f iled t his acti on . ( 3) T he C our tnot es t hat , by agr eementof the par t i es , C C H D D has di s m i s s ed cl ai m s br oughtby m any of the pl ai nt i f

f s pur s uantt o curr ent M i ssi ssi pp i j oinder rul es. T he C ou rtf i nd s t hat i ti s n ot app ropriate to a w ard s ancti ons bas ed on claim s af terthey have be en voluntar il y dis m is s ed
. (4 ) T h e C o u rt de c lin e s to a do p t th e o p in io n b y th e Ho n o ra b le J

u d g e J a n is G r aham Jack , U nit ed S t at es D i stri ctJudg e fort he S ou t hern D i stri ctof T exas, C orpus C hr i s t i D i vi s i on, w ho pr es i ded overthe In re S ili c a P ro d u c ts L ia b ili ty Li t igat i on, N

o. 1553. T h e fe d e ra l co u rt re m a n d e d th is la w su it b a c k to th is C o u rt b e c a u se it l

a c k e d su b jec t-m a tterju ris dictio n o v e r th is la w su it
. (E m p h asis ad d ed ). ¶15. D es pi t e t hei ra gr eei ng t o the di s m i s s al of the C C H D D ’ s cl ai m s w i thoutpr ej udi ce and b ea ri n g their ow n co sts asso ciated w ith the li ti g ati o n , the D efe n d an ts att ac k Ju d g e H o w ard ’s
rul i ng denyi ng t he m ot i ons f ors anct i ons . Fi r s t , the D ef endant s a r gue thatC C H D D del ayed the p roc ee d ing s. H o w ev er, th e d ates h av e b ee n p u rpo sely o u tl ined in th e p roc ed u ral hist o ry i n orde rt o see t he act i ons t aken by CC H D D and the dat e of eac h r el evantf

i l i ng, i ncl udi ng

### 12

th e re m o v a l to fe d e ra l co u rt in M iss iss ip p i an d T e x a s , a n d th e s u b se q u e n t tran sfe r to M i s s i s s i ppi , w her e the cl ai m s w er e di s m i s s ed w i t houtpr ej udi ce. ¶16. B as ed on t he backgr ound of t he cas e, i ncl udi ng i t s l ong hi s t ory of t r ans f er s and t he per i od of

t i m e al l ow ed by the M D L f eder al cour tf

ordi s covery, w e f

ai l t o s ee how the C C H D D Pl ai nt i f

f s del ayed t he l i t i gat i on f ort he purpos e of

har as s m ent . T he f

actt hat C C H D D di s m i s s ed i t s Pl ai nt i f f s ’ cl ai m s does notprove thatC C H D D act ed t o del ay the pr ocee di ngs . T he gr ounds f orthe di s m i s s al w er e bas ed on a r ece ntc l ar i f i cat i on of

the l aw i n M i s s i s s i ppi r egar di ng j oi nderpur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e C i vi l Pr ocedur e 20. ¶17. I n s ubs ect i ons ( 2) and ( 3) of J udge H ow ar d’ s rul i ng, he s t at es t hat s anct i ons w er e not appr opr i at e bec aus e C C H D D di s m i s s ed cl ai m s , br oughtpur s uantt o cur r entM i s s i s s i ppi j oi nde rrul e s , b a s e d on r e c e nto pi ni on s b y t he Courti n t he a r e a o f j oi nd e r . A tthe t i me t he C C H D D P lain tiffs file d su it, th e y d id n o t h a v e th e b e n e fi t o f th is C o u rt’s h o ld in g in Mangi alar di , 889 So
. 2d at495. I n Mangi alar di , 889 So. 2d at495, w e hel d, “Such i nform at i on m usti nclude, ata m i nim um , t he n am e of the d efendan tor defendan t s agai nst
w hom eac h pl ai nt i f

f makes a c l ai m , a nd the t i m e per i od and l ocat i on of expos ur e. ” I n 2004, t hi s C our tt ook s i gni f

i cants t eps t o cl ar i f

y the appl i cat i on of

j oi nderpur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e C i vi l Pr ocedur e 20. ¶18. H er e, t he C C H D D compl ai nt , f i l ed i n 2002, di d no t sat i sf y t he r equi r ement s of

our hol di ng i n 2004 i n Mangi alar di , w hi ch r el i ed on ourhol di ng i n Janss en P harm aceuti ca, I nc . v. Arm ond , 866 So. 2d 1092 ( M i s s . 2004)
. I n Arm ond , th is C o u rtad d resse d joind er,
s t at i ng:

### 13

T he comm entt o Rul e 20 s t at es bot h that"the gene r al phi l os ophy of t he j oi nder p r o v i s i o n s o f

t h e s e ru l e s i s t o a l l o w v ir tual l y unlim ite d joinde rat

the ple ading s tage " a nd: Jo ind er o f pa rt ies u n d er R u le 20 (a) is not unlim ited
. . . . R ul e 20( a) i m pos es t w o s peci f

i c r equi s i t es t o t he j oi nderof part i es : ( 1) a r i ghtt o re l i ef m us tbe a s s e r t e d by o ra ga i ns te a c h pl a i nt i f f o rd e f e nd a ntr e l a t i ng t o ora r i s i ng outof t he sam e tr ans act i on oroccurr ence ; and, ( 2) s om e ques t i on of l aw orf

act c o m m o n to a ll th e p a rt ie s w ill a ri s e in th e a c tio n . B o th o f th e se re q u ire m e n ts m ust be s atis f ied in orde rto s ustain part y joinderunder Ru le 20( a)
. . . . M
. R
. C
. P. 20 cmt
. ( emphasi s added)
. T he i s s ue, t hen, i s w her e t o dr aw t he l i ne w i t h r es pectt o w hati s cons i der ed "the sa m e t r ans act i on, occurr ence , ors er i es o f tra n sa c tio n s o r o c c u rre n c e s." P lain tiffs a sk th is C o u rt to e x ten d th e ru le to al l ow m ul t i pl e unconne ct ed pl ai nt i f f s ' act i ons agai nstm ul t i pl e unconne ct ed def endant s , w her e i nd ependentdoct or s pr es cr i bed atdi f f er entt i m es and pl ace s , t he sa m e drug, Pr opul s i d, t o di f f er entpat i ent s . D ef

endant s as k the C our tt o pl ace s om e l i m i ton M i s s i s s i ppi ' s "vi r tual l y unl i m i t ed j oi nder " by f i ndi ng thatthe m any s epar at e doct or - pat i entpr es cr i bi ngs of Pr opul s i d do not ar i s e f r om t he s ame t r ans act i on, occurr ence , ors er i es of t r ans act i ons or occu rr ences. Arm ond , 866 So. 2d at1097. Fur t herand i m por t ant l y, t he part i es s i gned an a gr eed or der di s m i s s i ng m os tof

t he pl ai nt i f

f s , w hi ch w as appr oved by the ci r cui tcour t , w i t h t he part i es agr eei ng t o beart hei row n cos t s of l i t i gat i on. ¶19. T he D ef

endant s al s o m ai nt ai n t hatJ udge H ow ar d w as bound undert he doctr i ne of r es j udi cat a t o adoptt he rul i ngs by J udge J ack. J udge H ow ar d expr es s l y r ej ect ed the D e fe n d a n ts’ p o sitio n . T h e d o c trin e o f re s ju d ica ta a p p lies “ o n ly to q u e stio n s a c tu a lly l i t i gated i n a pri or sui t , and no tt o q uest i on s w hich m i gh thav e been l i t i gated. " Mayor& B d. of A lderm en v. Hom ebuilders A s s ' n of Mis s . , I nc. , 932 So. 2d 44, 59 ( M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng D u n aw ay v. W

. H . Hopper& A s s ociates , 42 2 So
. 2d 74 9, 75 1 ( M i s s . 19 82 ) ( qu ot i ng Johnson v. B agby , 252 M i s s . 125, 171 So. 2d 327 (M i s s . 1965))
. “R es j udi cat a r ef l ect s the

### 14

r ef us al of t he l aw t o t ol er at e a mul t i pl i ci t y of l i t i gat i on. ” G lob al

O c e anic Ente rs . v. H

y num , 857 So. 2d 659, 662 ( M i s s . 2003) ( ci t i ng L ittle v. V& G W el ding Sup ply, Inc. , 704 So. 2d 1 3 3 6 , 1 3 3 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 )). ¶20. I n Co llin s v . S ta te , 594 So. 2d 29, 32 ( M i s s . 1992) , t he C our t def i ned s ubj ect - m att er j uri sdi ct i on as: [A ] c o u rt ' s a u th o r it y " to e n te rt a in a n d p ro c e e d w ith a c a s e ." B ullock v. R oadw ay E

xpr es s, I nc. , 548 So. 2d 1306, 1308 ( M i s s . 1989). I n re vi ew i ng a s ubj ect - m at t erj ur i s di ct i on c hal l enge, thi s Courtl ooks a tthe t ype of case by exami ni ng t he natur e of t he contr over s y and the r el i ef s ought , as s um i ng t he a lle g a tio n s in th e w e ll- p le a d e d c o m p la in t a re tru e . Ho o d v. D ep t. o

f W il dli fe Conse r vati on , 5 7 1 S o . 2 d 2 6 3 , 2 6 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 ); s ee al s o P enr od D r il

ling C o. v. B ounds , 4 3 3 S o . 2 d 9 1 6 , 9 2 4 -25 (M iss. 1 9 8 3 ) (R o b ertson , J. , co n cu rri n g ). He r e , t h e CC HDD P l a i n t i f f s r a i s e d t h e l a c k o f

s u b j e c t - ma t t e rj u r i s d i c t i o n , a n d t h e M DL f eder al cour tagr eed. ¶2 1. U ndert he f

act s o f thi s c a s e , J ud ge How a r d c orr e c t l y f ou nd tha ts i nc e J udge J ack admi t t edl y l acke d subj ect - m at t erj ur i s di ct i on, t he ci r cui tcour tw as notbound by herrul i ngs
a s to th e C C H D D P la in tif fs o n re m a n d
. See R aynerv. R ayt heon Co. , 858 So. 2d 132, 138 ( M i s s . 2003) ( ci t i ng Hom e B u ilders A ss' n of Miss. , Inc. v. Cit

y of Madison , Miss. , 143 F. 3d 1 0 0 6 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 9 8 ) ( “ [ T ] h e f e d e r a l c o u r t 's ‘ c o m m e n t s ’ r e g a r d i n g th e m e r i t s o f R a y n e r 's cl ai m s w i l l nots ubj ecthi s new act i on t o t he doctr i nes of r es j udi cat a orcl ai m pr ecl us i on beca us e thos e ‘ comm ent s ’ conce r ni ng the m eri tof hi s cl ai m s w er e made w i t houts ubj ect
m att er jurisdicti o n an d ca n n o t be u sed ag ains t his ne w ac ti o n . ”)).

### 15

¶ 2 2
. E x a m in in g th e re c o rd a n d th e a rg u m e n ts a d v a n c e d o n a p p e a l, w e fin d th a t th e c irc u it
cou rtdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n denyi ng the D ef endant s ’ m ot i ons f

ors anct i on s. A c c o rd in g ly , this a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r is w ith o u t m e rit. II. ¶2 3. A l t er nat i vel y, t he D e f e nd a nt s ar gue t hatJ udge H ow ar d er r ed i n denyi ng t he D ef endant s ’ r eques tf

oraddi t i onal di s covery. T he ci r cui tcour ts t at ed: I T I S FU R T H E R O R D E R E D t hatD ef endant s ’ reques t s f

oraddi t i onal d isc o v e ry re lativ e to th e M o tio n fo r S a n c tio n s is D E N IE D . T h e r e c o rd is s uf f i ci ent l y es t abl i s hed f

ort hi s C our tt o rul e on t he m er i t s of the M ot i on, and no f ur t herdi s covery i s nece s s ary. ¶24. T he st and ard of revi ew for evi dent i ary m att er s i s w el l
- es t abl i s hed. I n Pay ne v. W hi tten , 948 So. 2d 427, 429- 30 ( M i s s . 2007) , thi s C our tr ece nt l y r ei t er at ed t hat, “The
s t andar d f

orr evi ew of

evi dent i ary m att er s i s abus e of di s cr et i on. ” ( C i t i ng Floyd v. Cit y of Cr ys tal Springs , 7 4 9 S o . 2 d 1 1 0 , 1 1 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 )). ¶25. A s t he r ecor d demonstr at es , the di s covery al l ow ed by J udge J ack i n t he M D L f eder al
cour tpr ovi ded s uf

f i ci entdi s covery f

ort he ci r cui tcourtto proceed w i t h the mot i ons f or
s a n c t i o n s . J u d g e Ho wa r d c o n d u c t e d a h e a r i n g o n th e De f e n d a n t s ’ mo t i o n s f

o rs a n c t i o n s . At t he conc l us i on of

the hear i ng, J udge H ow ar d r es erved hi s rul i ng. A f t erhi s exami nat i on of t he r ecor d, J udge H ow ar d decli ned t o aw ar d s anct i ons agai ns tC C H D D , and he de ni ed the
r eques tf oraddi t i on al di s covery. J udge H ow ar d w as i n the bes tpos i t i on t o det erm i ne
w hetheradd i t i on al dis cov ery w as necessary in order t o rul e on the m oti on s f or sanct i on s.

### 16

¶2 6
. F in d in g n o a b u se o f d isc re tio n in th e c irc u it c o u rt’s ru li n g , w e h o ld tha t th is
a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r is w ith o u t m e rit. CO NC L US I ON ¶27. Fort he for ego i ng reas ons , t he j udgm entof the C i r cui tC our tof

N oxubee C ount y, M i s s i s s i ppi , i s af

f i r m ed. ¶ 2 8
. A F F I R M E D . S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R, P . J . , CA RLS ON, DI CKI NS ON, RANDOL P H AND LAM AR, J J . , CO NCU R. DI AZ , P. J . , AN D G RA VES, J . , CO NCU R I N RESULT ONLY .