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 5 - CA- 0 2 0 6 4 - S CT FREDERICK G OR DO N, ET AL.
v. H ON EYW ELL I NTERN ATION AL, I NC . , ET AL. C ons ol i dat e d wi t h: 2 0 0 5 - CA- 0 2 0 6 5 - S CT CU RTI S BUSH , ET AL.
v. H ON EYW ELL I NTERN ATION AL, I NC . , ET AL. C ons ol i dat e d wi t h: 2 0 0 5 - CA- 0 2 0 6 6 - S CT J OH NN I E SPANN

, ET AL.
v. H ON EYW ELL I NTERN ATION AL, I NC . , ET AL. C ons ol i dat e d wi t h: 2 0 0 5 - CA- 0 2 0 6 7 - S CT W I LLI E SPANN

, ET AL.
v. H ON EYW ELL I NTERN ATION AL, I NC . , ET AL. C ons ol i dat e d wi t h: 2 0 0 5 - CA- 0 2 0 6 8 - S CT J I M M Y KI NG, ET AL.
v. H ON EYW ELL I NTERN ATION AL, I NC . , ET AL.

### 2

D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 09/ 30/ 2005 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N
. JA M E S T
. K IT C H E N S , Jr. CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: A TTO RN EY S FO R A PPELL A N TS: NOX UBEE COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT J. R IC H A R D D A V IS , Jr. W I L BU R O
. CO L UM A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L E E S : E D W A R D J. C U R R IE F. KEI TH B ALL RO CK Y W
. E AT ON L A W R E N C E M
. C O C O , III T
. H U N T C O L E , Jr. NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: DI S P OS I T I ON: M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: CI VI L - P ERS ONA L I NJ URY A FFIRM E D - 08/ 09/ 2007

EN BA NC. LAM AR, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. Th i s a p p e a l c o me s t o u s f r o m th e Ci r c u i tCo u r to f Nox u b e e Co u n ty , whe r e th e c l a i ms of num er ous pl ai nt i f

f s w er e di s m i s s ed w i thoutpr ej udi ce pur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of C iv il P ro c e d u re 4 1 (b ) fo r fa ilu re to c o m p ly w ith a c o u rt o rd e r d ire c tin g th e p la in tiffs to p e rfe c t tran sfe r o f th e c a se s to th e ir res p e c tiv e p ro p e r v e n u e s. P lain tiffs a p p e a l, arg u in g th a t: ( 1) the ci r cui tcourterr ed i n di s m i s s i ng t hei rcl ai m s ; (2) i tw as notthe r es pons i bi l i ty of t he pl ai nt i f f s t o copy and tr ans f

ert he cas es ; and (3) t he t r i al cour t ’ s di s m i s s al of the cl ai m s w as
co n tr ary t o th e p roc ed u res p resc ri b ed for tran sfer. F ind ing no ab u se o f discre ti o n , this C o u rt
a ffirm s th e ru lin g o f th e c irc u it co u rt.

F AC T S AN D C OU RS E OF P RO CE E DI NG S ¶2
. L ate in 2 0 0 2 , fi v e se p ara te ac ti o n s w ere file d b y fiv e s e p a ra te g rou p s o f p lai n ti ffs againstm ul t i pl e def

endant s i n the C i r cui tC our tof N oxubee Count y. A l l of thes e ac t i ons

### The a ctions wer e s tyl ed Go rdo n, et a l., v. Hon eywell Int’l, Inc., et a l. ; Bu sh, et a l., 1 

### v. Ho neyw ell Int’l, In c., et al. ; (John nie) Spa nn , et al., v. Hon eywell Int’l, In c., et al. ; (Will) Sp an n v. H

on eywell In t’l, Inc., et a l. ; and King, et al., v. H on eywell In t’l, Inc., et a l. Th ese fi ve a ctions havebee n cons oli dat ed unde r the name Gordon v . Hone ywell Int ’l , I nc. for the purpo ses of th is app eal. Sp ecifically, th e ord er requ ired th e plaintiffs’ counsel to pro vid e the d efense w ith 2 

### the nam e o f

e a c h de f e nd ant a gai ns t who m e a c h pl a i nti f

f a l l e ge d ac l a i m , theti m e and loc ation of

theexpos ure , and theme dic alcondi ti on ca use d by theexpos ure . 3 al l eged da m ages d ue t o expos ur e t o as bes t os - cont ai ni ng pr oduct s . I n eac h of thes e f i ve 1
cas es , def

endant s m ade a M ot i on f orM or e D ef

i ni t e St at ement , t o Severand Tra ns f er , and for O ther S p ec if

ic an d G en era l R eli ef. Fo ll o w ing a h ea ri n g o n thes e m o ti o n s, the tri al co u rt appl i ed thi s C our t ’ s deci s i ons i n 3M Com pany v. H

inton , 910 S o. 2d 526 ( M i s s . 2005) , and A m ch em P rodu ct

s v. R og ers , 91 2 S o. 2d 85 3 (M i ss. 20 05 ), and requi red the p l ai nti ff s’ att orneys t o pr ovi de the def ens e w i th m or e s peci f

i c f actual i nf

or m at i on abouteac h of t he pl ai nt i ff s’ cl ai m s s o the courtcoul d det erm i ne w hethervenue w as pr operi n N oxubee C ounty. 2 ¶3. Fol l ow i ng r es pons es f r om t he pl ai nt i f

f s , on June 24, 2005, the tr i al courtent er ed an O rde r of S ev era n ce , T ran sfer, an d /or D ism iss a l in e ac h o f th e five ca ses. T h ese o rde rs di r ect ed: ( 1) s ever ance of eac h cl ai m i nt o an i ndi vi dual caus e of act i on; ( 2) tr ans f

erof eac h pl ai nt i f f’ s c l a i m t o a pr op e rve nu e i n M i s s i s s i pp i , ori f no pr op e rve nu e i n M i s s i s s i ppi exi s t ed, di s m i s s al of

thos e cl ai m s w i thoutpr ej udi ce; ( 3) di s m i s s al w i thoutpr ej udi ce of t he cl ai m s of non- r es i dentpl ai nt i f

f s w ho had notbeen e xpos ed i n M i s s i s s i ppi and w ho w er e not al l egi ng a cl ai m agai ns ta M i s s i s s i ppi def endant ; (4) per f

ect i on of ea ch t r ans f

ert o a pr oper venue i n M i s s i s s i ppi w i thi n thi r ty days of the dat e of

the or der ; and ( 5) as a means of

### Pri or t o the seorde rs , the tria l c ourt alre ady ha d dis mi ss ed the c laim s of 437 non- 3 

### re si dent plaintif fs who did not

al le ge e it

her expos urein t

he St at e o f Miss is sippi t o a defen dant’s asbesto s-containin g pro du ct o r claims again st a Mississip pi resid ent d efend ant. 4 i ni t i at i ng tr ans f

er , f i l i ng of a ci vi l act i on coversheetand an a m ended c om pl ai ntby eac h pl ai nt i f f i n t he tr ans f

er ee c ounty. 3 ¶4. T he pl ai nt i f

f s f ai l ed t o per f

ect tr ansfer of the r emai ni ng f i f ty- s even cas es t o pr oper
v e n u e s in M is s is s ip p i w ith in th e th ir ty - d a y p e ri o d p re s c ri b e d b y th e tr ia l c o u rt ’s o rd e r. A h e a r i n g wa s h e l d o n Au g u s t1 2 t o d i s c u s s , i n t e ra l i a , th e p l a i n t i f f s ’ f a i l u r e i n th i s r e g a r d
. At thathear i ng, pl ai nti f

f s ’ couns el s peci f

i cal l y r eques t ed thatthe dea dl i ne f orthe tr ans f

erof th e se c a se s to b e p e rfe c ted b e e x ten d e d to S e p tem b e r 3 0 . T h e tria l ju d g e a g re e d a n d o ra lly grant ed the pl ai nti ff

s an ext ensi on of t i m e unti l Sep t em ber 30, 20 05 , t o p erf ectthe tr ansfer s. ¶5. T h e tr ial c o u rtsc h edu l ed a h eari ng forS eptem ber 30, 2005 , t o d i scuss dis co v ery iss u e s in th e re m a in in g c a se s. A t th is h e a rin g , itc a m e to lig h t th a t th e p lain tiffs h a d a g a in f ai l ed t o per f

ectthe tr ans f

er s and thatamended compl ai nt s and ci vi l act i on c overs heet s had notbeen f

i l ed i n t he tr ans f

er ee c our t s as di r ect ed by t he t r i al cour t ’ s pre vi ous or der
. Show i ng obvi ous f

rus tr at i on, the tr i al courtdi s m i s s ed w i thoutpr ej ud i ce the cas es i n w hi ch the p lai n ti ffs ha d fail ed to p erfec t tran sfer: So t hati n r evi ew and the courtw i l l know and I thi nk t he r ecor d w i l l re f l ectthe num berof

t i m es thatw e have m eton thos e i s s ues , the numberof t i m es that I’v e ru led o n th is iss u e , an d th e n u m b e r o f tim e s th a t I th o u g h t th a t I m a d e it v ery c lear w h at w as to b e d o n e in li g h t of so m e o f th e re ce n t Su p rem e C o u rt cas es thathave i ndi cat ed w hatI have t o do s houl d the transf er not be done tim e ly . I th in k th a t I h a v e to d o w h a t I sa id I w a s g o in g to d o . A n d th a t is in thos e ca s es thatar e–thatw er e t o be tr ans f err ed, thathave notbe en done s o by t od ay’s dat e, I w i l l si gn orders dis m i ssi ng tho se cases. Pl ai nt i f f s ’ couns el att empt ed t o getthe tr i al j udge t o r econs i derhi s rul i ng by attr i but i ng the del ay t o t he ci r cui tcl erk’ s of f i ce:

### 5

BY M R. COLOM : Yo u rHo n o r , . . . I d o n ’ tc o p y th e f i l e s a n d s e n d th e m. B Y T H E C O U R T : H ave y ou fi l ed co ver sheet s or anyt hing i n those j ur i s di ct i ons w her e thes e ca s es w er e goi ng t o be tr ans f err ed? B Y M R
. C O L O M : I c a n ’t fil e a c o v e r sh e e t, Y o u r H o n o r, u n til th e file a c tu a lly get s ther e. B Y T H E C O U R T : I believe th at yo u can . I believe that that ca n b e d o n e. I’ m nots o f arr emoved f

r om f i l i ng ci vi l l i t i gat i on. U pon a r eques tby pl ai nt i f f s ’ c ouns el thatan evi dent i ary hear i ng be hel d on the tr ans f eri s s ue, the courtw enton t o s ay: B Y T H E C O U R T : I a s k e d

– o r I ru le d th a t th is w a s to b e d o n e b y t h e 3 0 , I th rul ed t hat
. T her e w as no appl i cat i on i n ther e f oraddi t i onal t i m e bec aus e of s om e ca t as tr ophi c pr obl em. I ha d be gun the pr oces s a nd ha d rul ed i n J une that they w er e t o be done a nd I ’ ve expa nded i tt o Sept ember30 thati tw as t o be th done. A nd now i t ’ s Sept ember30 and they’ r e s t i l l notdone. th Fi nal l y, I have t o do w hatI s ay I ’ m goi ng t o do orw hatI s ay means nothi ng. A n d I’m a t th a t p o in t. T he tr i al j udge then al l ow ed pl ai nt i f f s ’ couns el t o cal l and exa m i ne the C i r cui tC l erk of N oxubee Count y f

orthe r ecor d. ¶6. T he crux of

t he ci r cui tcl erk’ s t es t i m ony w as thati tw as the r es pons i bi l i ty of hi s of f i ce to ac tually co p y an d m ail the fil es to th e tr an sferee c o u rt s. H e test if ied that the rec o rds w ere
very l ar ge and thathe had i ns uf f i ci entt i m e t o getthem done. O n cr os s exami nat i on, i tw as br oughtoutthatpl ai nt i f f s ’ c ouns el di d notbegi n t o “pus h” the cl erks of f i ce t o getthes e f

i l es tr ans f err ed unt i l A ugus t12, 2005, w hi ch w as af t erthe ori gi nal deadl i ne f orhavi ng t he tr ans f er s per f ect ed. H ow ever , the ci r cui tcl erk w enton t o t es t i f y t hatt her e w as not hi ng t hat pl ai nt i f f s ’ couns el coul d have done t o expedi t e the s i tuat i on. ¶7. T hats ame day, the tr i al courtent er ed an or derpurs uantt o M
. R
. C
. P. 41( b) di s m i s s i ng
w i thoutpr ej udi ce the ca s es of f i f ty- s even pl ai nt i f

f s w hos e cas e f

i l es had notbeen tr ans f

err ed

### 6

fro m N o x u b e e C o u n ty to th e ir p ro p e r v e n u e s. A g g rie v e d b y th e trial c o u rt’s d e c isio n to d ism iss th e se c a se s, th e p lain tiffs a p p e a l. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶8. I t i s w el l
- s ett l ed that w hen r evi ew i ng a tr i al court ’ s di s m i s s al pur s uant t o M i s s i s s i ppi R ule C i vil P rocedu re 41(b), this C o u rtm ay rev ers e on l y if i tfi nd s that there w as an ab use
o f d is c re tio n o n th e p a rt o f t h e tr ia l c o u rt . Miss. D ep’t of Hu m an S ervs. v. G u idry , 830 So. 2 d 6 2 8 , 6 3 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ). A N A L Y S IS ¶9. W hi l e the plai nti ff s presentthei r ar gum entthr ough thr ee s epar at e as s i gnm ent s of
err or , thi s appea l can be f ul l y addr es s ed thr ough the ana l ys i s of one i s s ue: W he t he r t he c i r c ui t c our t ac t e d pr ope r l y i n di s m i s s i ng wi t hout pr e j udi c e t he c as e s whi c h had n ot be e n t r ans f e r r e d. ¶10. T he pl ai nt i f

f s ar gue that the ci r cui t court ’ s di s m i s s al of thei r cas es w i thoutpr ej udi ce
w as i m proper . H ow ever , a r ece ntcas e f r om thi s C our thas es t abl i s hed a pr ocedur e f or d ea li n g w ith case s, suc h as th is o n e, w h ere th e P lai n ti ffs’ claim s w ere m isj o ine d , an d it i s contr ol l i ng. ¶ 1 1
. C o n fro n ted w ith a se t o f fa c ts sim ilar to th o se p re se n ted b y th is a p p e a l, th is C o u rt in Ca n a dia n N

a tio n a l/Illin o is Ce n tra l R a ilro a d v. Sm ith , 9 2 6 S o . 2 d 8 3 9 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ), addr es s ed a que s t i on of

f i r s ti m pr es s i on: “ W hetherthe l aw s ui t s of mi s j oi ned pl ai nt i f

f s – a f t er
s ever ance – s houl d be di s m i s s ed and r ef i l ed as new cas es . ” Ca n a dian N a t’l , 926 So. 2d at 842. Jus t i ce D i cki ns on’ s ver y t hor ough anal ys i s out l i ned t he hol di ngs i n re centcas es deal i ng
w ith R u le 2 0 o f t h e M is s is s ip p i R u le s o f C iv il P ro c e d u re . I d. at843- 45. Poi nt i ng outt hat Ja ns s e n Pharm ac e uti c a, I nc . v. Arm ond , 866 So. 2d 1092 (M i s s . 2004) , and H a ro ld ’s A u toT her e i s no di s put e thats ever ance of the cl ai m s i nvol ved i n thi s appea l w as 4 a p p ro p ri a te , n o r is th e re a d isp u te o v e r th e re sp e c tiv e v e n u e s to w h ich e a c h se v e re d c laim w as t o b e t ran sferred. T he sole i ssue i n thi s appea l i s the tr i al cou rt ’s dis m i ssal of these claim s for failure to p erfec t tran sfer. 

### 7 P ar t s, I nc. v. Mangi alar di , 889 So. 2d 493 (M i s s . 2004) , “pl ace d the bur den upon the tr i al
c o u rt to d e te rm in e a p p ro p ri a te v e n u e s a n d , w h e re a p p ro p ri a te , to tr a n s fe r t h e s e v e re d c a s e s ,” 4 Ju stic e D ick in so n a ss e rte d th a t th is C o u rt h a d p ro v id e d trial c o u rts n o g u id a n c e in th is p ro c e s s . Ca n a dian N

a t’l , 926 So. 2d at844. Speaki ng f orthe C our t , he dec l ar ed, “W e now f i nd i tappr opr i at e t o pr ovi de f ur thercl ar i f

i cat i on as t o the di s pos i t i on of the cl ai m s and ca s es of m i s j oi ned pl ai nt i f

f s , f ol l ow i ng s ever ance . ” I d. ¶12
. Itis ob v iou s tha t th is tri al co u rt , this cir cuitcl erk, and thes e a tt o rne y s w ere
e xp e r i e nc i ng the ve r y p r ob l e ms c on t e mpl a t e d b y thi s Cour tw he n d e c i di ng Canadi an N ati onal
. W hen di s cus s i ng the tr ans f erof s ever ed pl ai nt i f

f s ’ cl ai m s , the C ourtst at ed that ther e w er e “numer ous pr obl ems” w hi ch i ncl uded the pr ocedur e i t s el f havi ng no def

i ni t i on
o r g u id e lin e s. N o r w a s it m a d e c lea r b y th e C o u rt’s p re v io u s d e c isio n s e x a c tly w h a t sh o u ld b e “ tr a n s fe rr e d ” to th e p ro p e r v e n u e . I d . at844. Fori ns t ance , as s um i ng ar gu endo the tr i al courti n Arm ond det erm i ned that f i f ty of t he f

i f ty- s i x pl ai nt i f

f s s houl d be “tr ans f

err ed” t o f

i f ty di f f er ent j uri sdi ct i ons , w e ca nnots ay how thes e “tr ans f er s ” s houl d have t aken pl ace . O n e c o u ld a rg u e th a t, un d e r th is h y p o th e tica l tran sfe r o f fifty c a se s, th e c irc u it cl erk i n the j ur i s di ct i on w her e Arm ond w a s file d w a s re q u ire d to m a k e fifty copi es of t he A r m ond fi l e an d deli ver t hem to the fi fty respect i ve jur i sdi ct i on s. I d . T h is case p rese n ted ju st suc h a p rob lem as th e o n e c o n sid e re d in Ju sti ce D ickin so n ’s exampl e. T he C i r cui tC l erk of N oxubee Count y even t es t i f i ed thathe w as overw hel m ed by the t as k of

gett i ng thes e ca s es copi ed and tr ans f err ed. I ti s al s o appar entf r om the hea r i ngs

### 8

conduct ed i n thi s cas e t hatther e w as an i s s ue as t o w hats houl d be tr ans f err ed and w hatthe
cos tof thattr ans f

erw oul d be. ¶ 1 3
. S e e in g th e p ro b lem s w h ich w o u ld aris e u n d e r th e “ se v e r a n d tra n sfe r p ro c e d u re ,” th is C our tadopt ed a new rul e: W her e pl ai nt i f f s ar e m i s j oi ned and s ever ance i s r equi r ed, the tr i al
c o u rt sh a ll (1 ) a llo w a p lain tiff w h o se c a se is p ro p e rly b e fo re th e c o u rt, an d a ll p ro p e rly join e d p lain ti ffs, to p roc ee d in the fi led a cti o n , (2) a ll o w m isj o ined p lai n ti ffs w h o are pr oper l y bef

or e the tr i al courtt o pr ocee d w i th s epar at e ac t i ons i n the forum co urt , and ( 3)
s everand di s m i s s al l mi s j oi ned pl ai nt i f

f s w ho l ack pr opervenue i n the f orum court , al l ow i ng
eac h s ever ed pl ai nt i f

f t o f i l e a ne w com plai nti n an appr opr i at e venue s el ect ed by the p la in tif f. Ca n a dian N

a t’l , 926 So. 2d at845. B eca us e the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons i s t ol l ed
w hi l e a mi s

j oi ned pl ai nt i f

f’ s cas e is p end i ng, ther e s houl d be no r es ul t i ng pr ej udi ce t o a
s e v e re d a n d d is m is s e d p la in tif f. I d. ¶1 4. W hi l e t he e ve nt s of thi s c a s e oc c urr e d p r i ort o thi s Cour t ’ s de c i s i on i n Canadi an N ati onal , the tr i al court ’ s act i ons w er e per f ect l y i n accor d w i th t he rul e pr es cr i bed ther ei n. T h e tri al co u rtsev ere d e ac h o f the im p rop erly-joine d p lai n ti ffs an d d eterm ined w h ethe r th ere
ex ist ed a p rop er v e n u e in M issi ssipp i f o r th e se v ere d claim s. T h e c lai m s w h ich w ere pr oper l y br oughti n N oxubee Count y w er e cont i nued i n N oxu bee C ounty. T hos e s ever ed
c a s e s w hi c h wer e no tpr op e r l y i n Noxub e e County wer e di s mi s s e d wi tho utpr e j udi ce, aff ordi ng t ho se pl ai nti ff

s an op po rtun i ty to r efi l e i n a p roper venu e. T he factthat these cl ai m s w er e di s m i s s ed pur s uant t o M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e C i vi l Pr ocedur e 41( b) i s of no
cons equenc e.

### 9 CO NC L US I ON ¶1 5. T he C i r cui tC our tof N oxubee Cou nty d i d n ota bu s e i t s di s c r e t i on i n di s mi s s i ng
w i thoutpre

j udi ce the cl ai m s of s ever ed pl ai nt i f f s w hi ch w er e notpr oper l y f i l ed i n N oxubee C ounty. I n fa ct , t he t r i al cour t ’ s act i ons w er e i n conf or m i ty w i th a proc edur e l at erpr es cr i bed by thi s C our t . Fort hatr eas on, t he rul i ng of the C i r cui tC our tof N oxubee Count y i s af

f i r m ed. ¶ 1 6
. AF F I RM ED . S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R, P. J . , CARL S ON AND DI CKI NS ON, J J . CONCUR. DI AZ , P. J . , CONCURS I N RES UL T ONL Y. EA S LE Y AND GRA VE S , J J . , DI S S EN T W I T HOU T S E P ARAT E W RI TT EN OPI NI ON. RANDOL P H, J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .