Opinion ID: 2793026
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Timeliness of Motion to Dismiss

Text: The petitioners challenge the timeliness of the respondents’ motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. Under West Virginia Code §56-1-1a, a forum non conveniens motion is timely if it is filed “either concurrently or prior to the filing of . . . a motion pursuant to Rule twelve of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure . . . .” The Panel found that the respondents’ motion was timely filed because it met the deadline for Rule 12 motions set forth in its Case Management Order. See Franklin D. Cleckley, Robin Jean Davis, & Louis J. Palmer, Jr., Litigation Handbook on West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, §12(b)(3)[4], at p. 373-75 (4th ed. 2012) (addressing forum non conveniens in context of motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(3)).20 20 Typically, we would not expect to see a Rule 12 motion deadline in litigation that had been pending, in part, for nearly two years at the time the Case Management Order was entered. But see In re: Digitek® Litigation, Apr. 2, 2010 Order, Mass Litigation Panel (dismissing claims of two plaintiffs from mass litigation on basis of forum non conveniens where complaints were filed approximately fifteen and eighteen months earlier). However, as can readily be seen from the factual recitation set forth above, prior to the attempted referral to the Panel in the fall of 2013, this litigation primarily involved two removals to federal court, including an appeal to the Fourth Circuit. Thereafter, the litigation was referred to the Panel after which the litigation involved the petitioners’ pursuit of a writ of prohibition in Mazzone I. Consequently, once this litigation was remanded to the Panel in May of 2014, following Mazzone I, the Panel plainly recognized the unique circumstances presented in this litigation, including the fact that the matter had not progressed very far despite the lapse of time since the filing of the first complaint. Although we also recognize these unique circumstances, we remind the Panel that its discretion and authority is not limitless. While “we fully intend to allow the supervising [Panel] judge to continue to fashion and implement various trial management plans . . . . this Court may choose to exercise its constitutional grant of powers if, and when, issues of constitutional or (continued...) 11 In Mazzone I, this Court expressed its “support [of] the Panel’s need to have some discretion in processing the numerous issues that necessarily flow from mass litigation cases.” 233 W.Va. at 474, 759 S.E.2d at 217. Recognizing the Panel’s “authority to implement procedural mechanisms to address the numerous individual and collective unique issues that are inherent in mass litigation[,]” we further stated that “[o]ur Rules of Civil Procedure provide a host of mechanisms for the Panel to use in efficiently processing mass litigation cases.” Id. In fact, we informed the Panel that “to the extent that some plaintiffs may be subject to dispositive motions[,]” it was “free to devise a scheme that permits the defendants to raise those issues and have them addressed separately[,]” which the Panel did in its Case Management Order. Id. Indeed, long before Mazzone I, this Court recognized that the management of [mass tort] cases cannot be accomplished without granting the trial courts assigned to these matters significant flexibility and leeway with regard to their handling of these cases. A critical component of that required flexibility is the opportunity for the trial court to continually reassess and evaluate what is required to advance the needs and rights of the parties within the constraints of the judicial system. Out of this need to deal with “mass litigation” cases in non-traditional and often innovative ways, TCR 26.01 was drafted and adopted.21 20 (...continued) overarching significance arise that demand immediate relief.” State ex rel. Mobil Corp. v. Gaughan, 211 W.Va. 106, 114, 563 S.E.2d 419, 427 (2002). We do not find such issues under the facts and circumstances of this litigation. 21 West Virginia Trial Court Rule 26.01 established the Mass Litigation Panel, and Trial Court Rules 26.01 through Rule 26.12 pertain to mass litigation. 12 State ex rel. Mobil Corp. v. Gaughan, 211 W.Va. 106, 111, 563 S.E.2d 419, 424 (2002) (footnote added). In the case at bar, the Panel clearly evaluated the status of the Zoloft litigation during the scheduling/status conference that was held soon after the remand in Mazzone I. The information garnered during that conference led to the Panel’s entry of the Case Management Order six days later, which included a deadline for Rule 12 motions that resultantly extended the deadline for motions for forum non conveniens.22 W.Va.R.Civ.P. 12. Indeed, the Panel has great discretion under our mass litigation rules23 to implement case management plans and orders–even where they may conflict with another rule or statute.24 Accordingly, we find that the Panel had the authority to enter a case management order that established a deadline for Rule 12 motions. As such, the respondents’ motion, filed in conformance with the Case Management Order, was timely. Moreover, even if we were to assume, arguendo, that it was error, there is still no basis to issue the requested writ. In Bowman v. Barnes, 168 W.Va. 111, 282 S.E.2d 613 (1981), the trial court effectively extended the time period for a motion for a new trial filed 22 W.Va. Code § 56-1-1a(b). 23 See supra notes 16, 20, and 21. 24 West Virginia Trial Court Rule 26.12 provides, in part, that “[i]f these Rules conflict with other rules or statutes, these rules shall apply[.]” 13 pursuant to Rule 59 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. The defendants challenged that ruling on the basis that another West Virginia Rule of Civil Procedure–Rule 6–specifically precludes a trial court from extending the time for taking action under Rule 59. In addressing this issue, this Court held: Where a trial court makes an erroneous ruling extending a time period under the Rules of Civil Procedure, and one of the parties relies on the ruling, such party will not be foreclosed from further pursuit of his claim because of this error. This is particularly true where the opposing party acquiesces or fails to object to the erroneous ruling at the time it was made. Bowman, 168 W.Va. 111, 282 S.E.2d 613, syl. pt. 1;25 see also Roberts v. Consolidation Coal Co., 208 W.Va. 218, 227, 539 S.E.2d 478, 487 (2000) (citing Bowman with approval). During oral argument, the petitioners conceded that they did not object to the inclusion of a 25 In Bowman, the Court relied upon Thompson v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 375 U.S. 384 (1964), and Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc., 371 U.S. 215 (1962). Both Thompson and Harris involved a challenge to the timeliness of an appeal where the trial court extended the time period under the rules of civil procedure for filing an appeal. In a recent five to four majority opinion, the United States Supreme Court overruled both Thompson and Harris “to the extent they purport to authorize an exception to a jurisdictional rule.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). Clarifying the difference between time limit rules that are “jurisdictional,” versus those that are “claims­ processing,” the Court noted its “longstanding treatment of statutory time limits for taking an appeal as jurisdictional[.]” Id. at 210. Because forum non conveniens presupposes a court’s jurisdiction, rather than conferring it, our holding in Bowman remains good law for our current purposes. See Mylan, 227 W.Va. at 643 n.1, 713 S.E.2d at 358 n.1 (“[I]t is generally recognized that a motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens presupposes that the court in which the action is filed . . . has jurisdiction . . . in which to hear the claims.”). 14 Rule 12 deadline in the Case Management Order.26 See W.Va.R.Civ.P. 12. In the absence of any objection, the respondents relied upon the Rule 12 deadline in the Case Management Order and filed their motion to dismiss pursuant to the order. Accordingly, even if the Panel erred in setting a Rule 12 deadline in its Case Management Order, under Bowman, the respondents’ motion to dismiss would still be timely filed. 168 W.Va. 111, 282 S.E.2d 613, syl. pt.1.