Opinion ID: 1597995
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether plaintiffs' claims arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions.

Text: ¶ 8. American Bankers argues that joinder under Rule 20 is improper. Rule 20 provides in pertinent part that: All persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative 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 these persons will arise in the action.... ¶ 9. American Bankers claim that the same transaction requirement of Rule 20 demands more than the bare allegation that all plaintiffs are victims of a fraudulent scheme perpetrated by one or more defendants; there must be some indication that each plaintiff has been induced to act by the same misrepresentation. Insolia v. Philip Morris, Inc. 186 F.R.D. 547, 549 (W.D.Wis.1999). ¶ 10. The Insolia case involved the claims of three former smokers and their spouses against several cigarette manufacturers and trade organizations. The court refused to allow a joinder, pointing out that each plaintiffs claim arose out of a unique set of facts and circumstances and the only thread holding these disparate factual scenarios together is the allegations of an industry-wide conspiracy.... Id. at 550. ¶ 11. American Bankers also points to the case of Grayson v. K-Mart Corp., 849 F.Supp. 785 (N.D.Ga.1994) in which 11 plaintiffs who worked as managers at various K-Mart stores sued for age discrimination and emotional distress. In that case the court held that the plaintiffs were misjoined. Also, in Alvarez v. Armour Pharm., 1997 WL 566373, 1997 U.S. Dist. Lexis 13668 (N.D.Ill. Sept. 8, 1997), 47 plaintiffs joined in the original complaint and then later 200 additional plaintiffs and two related cases attempted to join. The court held that joinder of the plaintiffs violated Rule 20 and that each plaintiff should file a separate case. Id. ¶ 12. The plaintiffs argue that joinder was proper because the coverages which were force placed on each individual plaintiff were exactly the same and that the total premiums charged to each plaintiff varied according to the outstanding loan balance. There was only one master policy covering all plaintiffs. The insurance certificate issued to each plaintiff was identical and provided coverage under the one master policy providing the same single interest coverage on each of the plaintiffs' loans. The decision as to what coverage would be force placed on Fidelity's customers was not one made on a case-by-case basis. Rather, the plaintiffs argue that as early as 1986 the decision was made by American Bankers and Fidelity to force place this coverage upon Fidelity's customers. [4] They claim that there is nothing unique or individual about American Bankers' treatment of any of the plaintiffs other than the actual amount of the premiums charged. Any differences that arise are due to the simple fact that some of the plaintiffs' loans were more than others and the premiums were based upon the outstanding loan balance at the time of force placement. Plaintiffs contend that these are not separate disparate acts which require a separate lawsuit for each plaintiff and are beyond mere allegations as to industry-wide corruption. ¶ 13. Plaintiffs rebut American Bankers' claims that numerous federal court cases have determined that such industry-wide allegations of conspiracy to defraud consumers did not meet the Rule 20 requirement by citing cases similar to the one at hand in which joinder was proper when the complaint arose out of the same transaction or occurrence. Jolley v. Welch, 904 F.2d 988, 990 (5th Cir.1990) (suit by investors against a broker and his employer relating to different investment services provided to the plaintiffs over a period of years); Nor-Tex Agencies, Inc. v. Jones, 482 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir.1973) (The Fifth Circuit applied the logical relationship test, holding that if there is a logical relationship between the operative facts such as a common scheme to defraud then joinder may be proper); Hanley v. First Investors Corp., 151 F.R.D. 76 (E.D.Tex.1993)(securities fraud action brought by nineteen plaintiffs who purchased shares in mutual funds through First Investors Corp.). ¶ 14. Plaintiffs further respond to American Bankers' arguments by claiming that: (1) the only way that the trial courts will actually have clogged their dockets with an unmanageable morass of litigation is if all 1350 plaintiffs are forced to file individual lawsuits; (2) the weeding out process which American Bankers claims would occur if each individual were required to file their own claim would not be accomplished by a fair trial in each case, but instead through harsh economics in which thousands of claims would appear too small to litigate separately, thus allowing large corporations to amass profits while basically creating for itself procedural immunity; (3) a look at the record which has been submitted to this Court from the trial court below flies in the face of American Bankers' contention that joinder will create unmanageable litigation. Considering that the record contains 121 bound volumes with more than eight thousand pages, forcing the plaintiffs to take their claims on a case-by-case basis, the paperwork alone would swamp the trial and appellate courts. This Court is mindful of the teachings of the United States Supreme Court in cases employing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court said in Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 617, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997): The policy at the very core of the class action mechanism is to overcome the problem that small recoveries do not provide the incentive for any individual to bring a solo action prosecuting his or her rights. A class action solves this problem by aggregating the relatively paltry potential recoveries into something worth someone's (usually an attorney's) labor. See also Mace v. Van Ru Credit Corp., 109 F.3d 338, 344 (7th Cir.1997). ¶ 15. This Court held in Barrett v. Coullet, 263 So.2d 764, 766(Miss.1972): [a] suit on behalf of a class should be closely studied, carefully analyzed and permitted only in clear cases because by its very nature such an action deprives non-appearing parties of their separate personal day in court, of their right to a choice of remedy, and they are bound forever by the decision rendered. ¶ 16. However, since 1981 we have fashioned our Rules of Civil Procedure to handle cases of this type under Rule 20 and 42. ¶ 17. The plaintiffs contend that due to the dramatic increase in civil cases filed in Mississippi and our refusal to adopt class action, the trial courts should be allowed to apply Rule 20 of the M.R.C.P. in order to deal more efficiently with the sudden influx of cases and allow them to choose their attorneys to represent them. ¶ 18. This Court has, in the past, taken notice of the unavailability of class actions and has liberalized the rules of civil procedure at times in order to better accommodate parties who are consequently shut out of the legal system. In Mississippi High School Activities Ass'n., Inc. v. Coleman, 631 So.2d 768, 773 (Miss.1994), this Court noted the exception to the mootness doctrine holding: Mississippi's expansion of the exception to the mootness doctrine works to fill the gap left open by the unavailability of class actions in Mississippi. Federal courts need not employ such an expanded exception to the mootness doctrine because class actions are available to insure that moot cases which are capable of repetition yet evading review are adjudicated as live controversies. ¶ 19. Much like the state rule, Fed. R.Civ.P. 20 imposes the same two requirements for joinder of parties, i.e., the transaction or occurrence test and the common question of law or fact test. Similar to the approach adopted by the Official Comment to Miss. R. Civ. P. 20, the federal courts view the transaction or occurrence test on a case by case basis utilizing a liberal approach toward joinder. 7 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil 2nd § 1653 (1986). In fact, under the federal rule, if the transaction and occurrence test cannot be met, there is always a possibility that the cases can be consolidated solely on the existence of common issues. Id. When reviewing common questions of law or fact, the existence of only a single common issue of law, or a single common issue of fact will support joinder. Id. ¶ 20. In addition, the concept of the inability of an appellate court to substitute its own view for the findings of a trial court judge regarding joinder was discussed by this Court in the case of Bobby Kitchens, Inc. v. Mississippi Insurance Guaranty Ass'n., 560 So.2d 129 (Miss. 1989). In Bobby Kitchens, Inc., cited in the Mississippi Manufacturers Association (MMA) amicus curiae brief, [5] this Court considered whether a plaintiff should have been allowed to add additional claims against individual defendants along with his primary claim against the defendant Insurance Guaranty Association. Id. at 134. Although we felt that the better choice would have been to allow joinder, this Court correctly recognized that it could not substitute its own judgment. Id. As a result, it affirmed the trial court's denial of joinder as not being an abuse of discretion. ¶ 21. A review of several of the cases relied upon by American Bankers instantly reveals, however, that the factors which motivated the courts to order separate trials are not present in the case at bar. In Grayson, eleven plaintiffs filed an age discrimination suit against their employer. Grayson v. K-Mart Corp., 849 F.Supp. 785, 791 (N.D.Ga.1994). A joint trial of plaintiffs' claims would have involved eleven different factual situations, eleven sets of work histories, eleven sets of witnesses and testimony, and the laws of four different states. Id. at 791. The case at bar stands in stark contrast to the factual situations in Grayson. Here, each plaintiff has alleged the very same claims involving the same insurance policies. As such, the prejudice and confusion contemplated by the defendant is not sufficient to warrant separate trials. At the very least, any prejudice or confusion can be remedied by a carefully drafted jury instruction. ¶ 22. It is clear that all of the plaintiffs' claims arise out of the same pattern of conduct, the same type of insurance, and involve interpretation of the same master policy. All of the plaintiffs' claims are similar with the exception of the actual dollar amount charged on premiums. Even considering a rigid application of Rule 20 as American Bankers suggests, this Court would find it hard not to allow consolidation in these cases. In addition, under an abuse of discretion standard, the course of conduct undertaken by the trial judges does not rise to such a level; and therefore, we affirm the decision.