Ex Parte Flexible Products Co.
Decision Date | 03 June 2005 |
Docket Number | 1040450. |
Citation | 915 So.2d 34 |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Parties | Ex parte FLEXIBLE PRODUCTS COMPANY et al. In re Randy Wade Bice et al. v. Micon Products International, Inc., et al. Robert W. Acklin, Jr., et al. v. Micon Products International, Inc., et al. Richard G. Abernathy et al. v. Micon Products International, Inc., et al. |
Daniel J. Reynolds, Jr., Bessemer; and Alfred F. Smith, Jr., of Bainbridge, Mims, Rogers & Smith, LLP, Birmingham, for petitioner Flexible Products Company.
C.C. Torbert, Jr., Fournier J. Gale, and H. Thomas Wells, Jr., of Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., Birmingham, for petitioner Dow Chemical Company.
R. Marcus Givhan and Mary Brunson Whatley of Johnston, Barton, Proctor & Powell, LLP, Birmingham; and Michael R. Borasky of Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott, LLC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for petitioner Bayer MaterialScience, LLC.
Warren B. Lightfoot and Wynn M. Shuford of Lightfoot, Franklin & White, LLC, Birmingham, for petitioner BASF.
John W. Dodson and Jinny M. Ray of Ferguson, Frost & Dodson, L.L.P., Birmingham, for petitioners Earth Support Services d/b/a Micon, Inc., and Micon Products International, Inc.
David A. Lee and Alex Wyatt of Parsons, Lee & Juliano, P.C., Birmingham, for petitioner Sub-Technical.
Donald D. Lusk and Leslie A. Caldwell, Birmingham, for petitioner Green Mountain International, Inc.
James M. Smith of Stockham & Stockham, P.C., Birmingham, for petitioner RHH Foam Systems, Inc.
R. Larry Bradford of Bradford & Donahue, P.C., Birmingham, for petitioner Supply, Inc., and Industrial Mining Supply.
Donald W. Stewart, Anniston, for respondent.
Matthew C. McDonald and Kirkland E. Reid of Miller, Hamilton, Snider & Odom, L.L.C., Mobile, for amicus curiae Alabama Civil Justice Reform Committee, in support of the petitioners.
Deborah A. Smith of Christian & Small, LLP, Birmingham; Robert A. Bartlett and Nicholas G. Walker of McKenna Long & Aldridge, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia; Herbert L. Fenster of McKenna Long & Aldridge, LLP, Washington, D.C., and Robin S. Conrad, National Chamber Litigation Center, Inc., Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, in support of the petitioners.
David R. Boyd, Michael L. Edwards, H. Hampton Boles, Steven R. Casey, and Ed R. Haden of Balch & Bingham, LLP, Birmingham, for amici curiae Business Council of Alabama and Alabama Coal Association, in support of the petitioners.
Robert A. Huffaker of Rushton, Stakely, Johnston & Garrett, P.A., Montgomery, for amicus curiae American Chemistry Council, in support of the petitioners.
This petition for a writ of mandamus arises from a number of actions in which 1,675 plaintiffs, all individuals who claim that they were injured by exposure to isocyanate1 while employed as coal miners, have sued 11 defendants, including Flexible Products Company and Micon Products International, Inc., all of which are involved in the manufacture, use, and distribution of isocyanate. The defendants seek an order from this Court requiring the trial court to set aside its case-management order ("CMO"), which consolidates the underlying actions and sets out various guidelines for litigating those actions in the Bessemer Division of the Jefferson Circuit Court, or, in the alternative, requiring the trial court to modify its CMO so that the trials of the actions are consolidated according to terms the defendants deem appropriate. The defendants also challenge the trial court's determination that venue for all of the plaintiffs is proper in Jefferson County and seek an order requiring the transfer of certain of the actions to Tuscaloosa County. Finally, the defendants challenge that aspect of the CMO that envisions the appointment of a special master to try the plaintiffs' individual claims in groups of 25.
The underlying cases began with three actions brought by the plaintiffs: Bice v. Micon, Inc. (CV-01-1194), filed in September 2001; Abernathy v. Micon, Inc. (CV-01-1341), filed in October 2001; and Acklin v. Micon, Inc. (CV-02-1518), filed in October 2002. In all three cases, the plaintiffs asserted claims of negligence, wantonness, outrage, failure to warn, violation of the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine ("the AEMLD"), misrepresentation, concealment, breach of warranties, and conspiracy. On August 24, 2004, the plaintiffs moved to consolidate the three cases pursuant to Rule 42, Ala.R.Civ.P., and on November 17, 2004, the trial court issued the CMO addressing the motion to consolidate. In pertinent part, the CMO states:
The CMO further designates a master file as a repository for all pleadings and schedules a regular status conference every four weeks to oversee the litigation and to provide the parties with regular opportunities for filing additional motions as necessary. Under the heading, the CMO states:
Finally, in section 8, the CMO provides:
The CMO also provided for the selection of lead counsel by the lawyers for the defendants, and the CMO set out a scheduling order of completion...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cline v. Ashland, Inc.
...to a toxic substance is potentially huge. See Ex parte BASF Corp., 957 So.2d 1104 (Ala.2006) (1,600 plaintiffs); Ex parte Flexible Prods. Co., 915 So.2d 34 (Ala.2005) (1,675 plaintiffs); and Ex parte Monsanto Co., 862 So.2d 595 (Ala.2003) (3,500 plaintiffs). I submit that under either view ......
-
Griffin v. Unocal Corp.
...to a toxic substance is potentially huge. See Ex parte BASF Corp., 957 So.2d 1104 (Ala.2006) (1,600 plaintiffs); Ex parte Flexible Prods. Co., 915 So.2d 34 (Ala.2005) (1,675 plaintiffs); and Ex parte Monsanto Co., 862 So.2d 595 (Ala.2003) (3,500 plaintiffs). I submit that under either view ......
-
Ishler v. C.I.R., Civil Action No. CV-05-S-1108-NE.
...a party attempting to relitigate an issue that has been resolved in an earlier case involving the same parties." Ex parte Flexible Products Co., 915 So.2d 34, 45 (Ala.2005) (emphasis supplied). A party asserting the defense must satisfy the following elements: (1) the parties in two proceed......
-
Lemuel v. Admiral Ins. Co.
...dispensed of the requirement of mutuality of parties in applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel. See Flexible Products Co. v. Micon Products, 915 So.2d 34, 44-45 (Ala.2005) (noting that, with respect to both defensive and offensive collateral estoppel, Alabama requires mutuality of par......