Opinion ID: 1938007
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ill Cent. R.R. v. Gregory, 912 So.2d 829, 834-35 (Miss.2005).

Text: ¶ 6. The defendants argue that joinder is improper in this case because: (1) Each plaintiff entered into a separate contract with different insurance companies selling different types of insurance. (2) The contracts were entered into at different times. (3) The contracts were entered into in different counties (except for White and Kirkland, residents of Amite County who both entered into their separate contracts in Amite County). (4) Each plaintiff worked for a different manager (with the exception noted above). (5) Each plaintiff alleges a different set of facts. (6) Each plaintiff would require different witnesses to prove her case. (7) The circumstances underlying each plaintiff's resignation are separate and distinct. The defendants also contend the only commonalities between the plaintiffs' allegations are that they were each dissatisfied with their employment and they each sold insurance for a Farm Bureau insurance company. The plaintiffs add that the contract signed by each of them is substantially the same contract. ¶ 7. The plaintiffs all allege breach of contract, negligent and intentional torts, conspiracy, and fraud; however, they worked under different supervisors in different locations, and were subject to several different alleged circumstances at different times. Inasmuch as proof of the fraud and conspiracy claims alone would require intricate factual narratives and multiple witnesses, the amount of evidence that would have to be introduced to prove all the claims in one trial would certainly overwhelm a jury. It is important to note that no plaintiff has claims against every defendant. ¶ 8. The only alleged distinct litigable events which could tie together the plaintiffs claims against the defendants are the fraud and conspiracy claims. The complaint, however, does not state any specific facts to support such claims. In their depositions, the plaintiffs make vague, conclusory statements about Farm Bureau forcing out long-term agents so the managers can reap the rewards of the agents' hard work. These same issues were discussed in a recent severance case, MS Life Ins. Co. v. Baker, 905 So.2d 1179 (Miss. 2005), in which we held that severance was appropriate because: Though the forty-five plaintiffs in this case have lodged multifarious complaints of deception by Mississippi Life in their pleadings, motions, and briefs, they have failed to present any evidence which specifically identified any common misrepresentation to all plaintiffs by Mississippi Life, either written or oral. . . . Id. at 1155-86. The Baker court quoted with favor McLernon v. Source Int'l, Inc., 701 F.Supp. 1422 (E.D.Wis.1988), as follows: In order to satisfy Rule 20(a), [plaintiffs] must allege that their claims arise from one or more uniform misrepresentations. To do so, they must specifically identify which representations and/or omissions, if any, were made to all plaintiffs. If the representation was written, the writing in which the representation appeared and the date of publication must be set forth. That plaintiffs' claims may be premised on oral misrepresentations does not preclude joinder, provided plaintiffs allege that the substance of the oral representations was standardized.. . . 701 F.Supp. at 1425-26 (emphasis in original). ¶ 9. We find the plaintiffs have woefully failed to provide sufficient facts to prove their claims of fraud and conspiracy can withstand severance. To meet the above standards, there should be a showing that all of the plaintiffs' managers had a common plan in place prior to the hiring of the plaintiffs to induce the plaintiffs to work hard and sell insurance policies with recurring premiums and then force the plaintiffs to resign so the managers could receive the percentage of the recurring premiums. ¶ 10. Therefore, we find the circuit court erred in denying the defendants' motion to sever because the plaintiffs cannot show a distinct litigable event; and because all the actions complained of occurred (except for the two Amite County plaintiffs) in separate counties, in separate offices and were performed by different and separate actors. ¶ 11. We order the circuit court to sever and dismiss all causes of action filed by plaintiffs who were improperly joined. Said dismissal shall be without prejudice for each plaintiff to file a new complaint in an appropriate venue. [3]