Opinion ID: 2491484
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to sever the claims.

Text: ¶ 10. Under Rule 20(a) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, [a]ll persons may be joined in one action as defendants if there is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative, any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences, and if any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action. Miss. R. Civ. P. 20. Both of these prongs must be established before joinder is proper. Wyeth, 918 So.2d at 1245. A. Whether the Same-Transaction-or-Occurrence Prong is Satisfied. ¶ 11. Under the first prong of Rule 20(a), before an alleged `occurrence' will be sufficient to meet Rule 20(a)'s two factors, there must be a distinct litigable event linking the parties. Hegwood v. Williamson, 949 So.2d 728, 730 (Miss.2007) (quoting Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. v. Caldwell, 905 So.2d 1205, 1207 (Miss.2005)). In determining if the distinct litigable event exists to link the parties, the court should consider: whether a finding of liability for one plaintiff essentially establishes a finding for all plaintiffs, indicating that proof common to all plaintiffs is significant. The appropriateness of joinder decreases as the need for additional proof increases. If plaintiffs allege a single, primary wrongful act, the proof will be common on all plaintiffs; however, separate proof will be required where there are several wrongful acts by several different actors. The need for separate proof is lessened only where the different wrongful acts are similar in type and character and occur close in time and/or place. Hegwood, 949 So.2d at 730-31 (quoting Ill. Cent. R.R. v. Gregory, 912 So.2d 829, 834-35 (Miss.2005)). ¶ 12. In Hegwood, Williamson and Hegwood were involved in a car accident, and both were insured by State Farm Insurance. Hegwood, 949 So.2d at 730. Williamson filed two separate claims as a result of the car accident, one for property damage and medical payments under her policy with State Farm, and a third-party claim for bodily injury and medical expenses under Hegwood's liability policy. Hegwood, 949 So.2d at 730. Williamson then filed a breach-of-contract and bad-faith claim against State Farm as a result of the investigation by the company's insurance adjusters. In Hegwood, this Court stated that [t]he claims against Williamson and State Farm arise out of separate allegations of wrongdoing occurring at separate times. While it is true that the genesis of both claims arose out of the accident, the two claims involve different factual issues and different legal issues. Hegwood, 949 So.2d at 731. Further, when determining if joinder is appropriate, it is important to consider whether the proof presented to the jury would be confusing due to the multiplicity of facts. Hegwood, 949 So.2d at 731 (citing Caldwell, 905 So.2d at 1209). The Court held that raising both claims in one trial would be improper. Hegwood, 949 So.2d at 731. ¶ 13. In this case, no distinct litigable event links the claims against them medical-negligence defendants with the claims against the wrongful-incarceration defendants. Although the tragic death of Kaddarius is the nucleus of these claims, the claims involve different actors, different witnesses, different evidence, and different areas of the law. The medical-negligence and negligent-hiring claims require the plaintiffs to produce evidence that the medical-negligence defendants violated their duty of care in their treatment of Kaddarius and that they were negligent in the hiring of their medical staff. The evidence needed to prove these elements is in no way connected to the evidence the plaintiffs are required to show in order to prove their claims against the wrongful-incarceration defendants of negligence in the mishandling and testing of Kaddarius's blood and urine samples. The proof that would be required to prove the various claims between the two different groups of defendants would only serve to confuse the jury. Further, a finding of liability against one defendant does not impute liability to all defendants, causing more confusion to the jury. B. Whether any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action. ¶ 14. In addition to meeting the first prong of Rule 20(a), there must be a common question of law or fact for joinder to be proper. Miss. R. Civ. P. 20. As discussed above, no common question of law or fact exists to satisfy this prong. The case involves two different claims against different actors that require different proof and discuss different areas of the law. ¶ 15. Based on Hegwood, it is clear that no distinct litigable event can link the claims of the two groups of defendants. Therefore, the first prong of Rule 20(a) is not met. In addition to the first prong not being met, the plaintiffs have failed to provide sufficient argument that a common question of law or fact justifies joinder. Therefore, joinder is improper, and the claims should be severed.