School Asbestos Litigation, In re, 45
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) |
Citation | 977 F.2d 764 |
Docket Number | B,S,92-1053 and 92-1084,91-1943,92-1014,91-1981,Nos. 91-1887,91-1917,91-2105,No. 45,GEORGIA-PACIFIC,45,s. 91-1887 |
Parties | , 24 Fed.R.Serv.3d 39, 78 Ed. Law Rep. 234 In re SCHOOL ASBESTOS LITIGATION. PFIZER INC., Petitioner, v. The Honorable James McGirr KELLY, Nominal Respondent, Barnwell School Districtchool District of Lancaster, Manheim Township School District, Lampeter-Strasburg School District, Board of Education of the Memphis City Schools, and a Conditionally Certified Class, Respondents, Lac D'Amiante Du Quebec, Ltee., Intervenor. KAISER CEMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. The Honorable James McGirr KELLY, Nominal Respondent, School District of Lancaster, Manheim Township School District, Lampeter-Strasburg School District, Respondents, Lac D'Amiante Du Quebec, Ltee, Intervenor. ACandS, INC., Petitioner, v. The Honorable James McGirr KELLY, Nominal Respondent, Barnwell School Districtoard of Education of the Memphis City Schools, and a Conditionally Certified Class, Respondents, Lac D'Amiante Du Quebec, Ltee, Intervenor. ASTEN GROUP, INC., Petitioner, v. The Honorable James McGirr KELLY, Nominal Respondent, Barnwell School Districtoard of Education of the Memphis City Schools, and a Conditionally Certified Class, Respondents, Lac D'Amiante Du Quebec, Ltee, Intervenor. W.R. GRACE & CO.-CONN., Petitioner, v. The Honorable James McGirr KELLY, Nominal Respondent, Barnwell School Districtchool District of Lancaster, Manheim Township School District, Lampeter-Strasburg School District, Board of Education of the Memphis City Schools, and a Conditionally Certified Class, Respondents. ASTEN GROUP, INC., Dana Corporation, Pfizer, Inc., Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, and W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn., Petitioners, v. The Honorable James McGirr KELLY, Nominal Respondent, Barnwell School Districtchool District of Lancaster, Manheim Township School District, Lampeter-Strasburg School District, Board of Education of the Memphis City Schools, and a Conditionally Certified Class, Respondents.CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. The Honorable James McGirr KELLY, Nominal Respondent, School District of Lancaster |
Decision Date | 23 October 1992 |
Charles R. Bruton (argued), John A. Singer, Piper & Marbury, Rolin P. Bissell, Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, Philadelphia, Pa., for Pfizer Inc.
Patrick J. Hagan, Kincaid, Gianunzio, Caudle & Hubert, P.C., Oakland, Cal., Daniel J. Ryan, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Philadelphia, Pa., Thomas W. Kirby (argued), Wiley, Rein & Fielding, Washington, D.C., for Kaiser Cement Corp.
Alfred A. Gollatz, Donna Bailey McCarthy, Mary Anne Taufen, Gollatz, Griffin, Ewing & McCarthy, West Chester, Pa., for ACandS, Inc.
Robert P. Corbin, Deborah M. Knight, German, Gallagher & Murtagh, Philadelphia, Pa., for Asten Group, Inc.
David Booth Beers, Wendy S. White, Richard A. Nagareda, Shea & Gardner, Washington, D.C., for Cassiar Min. Corp.
Frederick B. Lacey, Molly S. Boast, Thomas Fenerty, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae, New York City, Edward W. Madeira, Jr., Richard W. Foltz, Jr., Matthew H. Adler, Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, Philadelphia, Pa., for Lac D'Amiante du Quebec, Ltee.
Denis McInerney, Allen S. Joslyn (argued), Cahill Gordon & Reindel, New York City, for W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn.
Walter S. Jenkins, Sweeney, Sheehan & Spencer, Philadelphia, Pa., John D. Briggs, Marguerite S. Boyd, Robert L. Green, Howrey & Simon, Washington, D.C., for Dana Corp.
Andrew J. Trevelise, Reed Smith & McClay, Philadelphia, Pa., R. Cornelius Danaher, Jr., Albert P. Lenge, Danaher, Tedford, Langnese & Neil, Hartford, Conn., for Pittsburgh Corning Corp.
John H. Lewis, Jr., Joseph B.G. Fay, J. Gordon Cooney, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Philadelphia, Pa., for U.S. Gypsum Co.
Alan Klein (argued), David Gutin, Leslie Thoman Bradley, Cohen, Shapiro, Polisher Herbert B. Newberg, Harvey S. Kronfeld (argued), Sandra L. Duggan (argued), Roger P. Cameron, Kronfeld, Newberg & Duggan, David Berger (argued), Harold Berger, Thomas F. Hughes, David Berger, Attorneys at Law, Arnold Levin (argued), Laurence S. Berman, Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, Philadelphia, Pa., for class plaintiffs.
Shiekman and Cohen, Philadelphia, Pa., for Georgia-Pacific Corp.
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 769 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE OVERALL LITIGATION ....................... 771 III. GENERAL STANDARDS REGARDING THE AVAILABILITY OF MANDAMUS ........... 772 IV. THE PETITIONS RELATING TO DISQUALIFICATION ......................... 774 A. Mandamus as a Means to Review a Judge's Failure to Disqualify Himself or Herself .... 774 B. The Facts Surrounding the Conference on the Hazards of Asbestos in Place ................ 778 C. Disqualification--Appearance of Partiality .... 781 D. Remedy--Vacatur of Past Rulings? .............. 785 V. THE PETITION RELATING TO THE EX PARTE FUNDING APPROVAL PROCESS ..... 788 VI. THE PETITIONS TO COMPEL CONSIDERATION OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY ................................................. 791 A. Procedural History ............................ 791 B. Mandamus as a Remedy for Refusal to Consider a Summary Judgment Motion on the Merits ....... 792 C. Timeliness Requirements for Summary Judgment Motions ..................................... 793 VII. THE PETITIONS REGARDING THE PHASE I TRIAL PLAN ........................................................ 795 A. Trying the Conspiracy and Concerted Action Claims First ................................ 795 B. Adjudicating the Case According to the Tort Standards of the Strictest Jurisdiction ..... 796 VIII. SUMMARY ............................................................ 798 ----------
Before: BECKER, HUTCHINSON, and ALITO, Circuit Judges.
Before us are eight petitions for mandamus brought by various defendants shortly before trial was scheduled to begin in this nationwide products liability class action. The trial, which has been stayed pending resolution of these petitions, will concern over 30,000 school districts' claims that the defendants are liable for expenses incurred in eliminating the alleged danger caused by asbestos-containing products in their school buildings. The class action is founded on diversity jurisdiction and will be adjudicated according to the laws of fifty-four jurisdictions.
Petition No. 91-1887, filed by Pfizer, Inc. and supported by numerous other defendants, challenges the refusal of the district judge, the Honorable James McGirr Kelly, to disqualify himself from the case. 1 Pfizer's petition first notes that Judge Kelly, pursuant to a previously established procedure, approved an ex parte request by the plaintiffs for $50,000 from a settlement fund to support a scientific conference on a key merits issue--the hazards of asbestos in place. The core allegation of the petition is that Judge Kelly attended, and had many of his expenses paid for, the resulting conference, which was an allegedly one-sided event at which most of the plaintiffs' expected expert witnesses presented views similar to those they intended to express at trial.
According to the petition, Judge Kelly acknowledged the resulting appearance of impropriety, but, instead of disqualifying himself, he barred experts who appeared at the conference from providing any expert testimony at trial. Pfizer submits that this remedy is inadequate, and that the sole remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) for the appearance of partiality is disqualification. Pfizer also claims that Judge Kelly had to disqualify himself under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b) because by attending the conference he obtained personal knowledge of disputed facts.
In its petition, Pfizer asks only that we order Judge Kelly to disqualify himself. Two companion petitions, No. 91-1943 filed by ACandS, Inc. and No. 91-1981 filed by Asten Group, Inc., argue additionally that specific rulings adverse to them, which were issued after defendants first requested Judge Kelly to disqualify himself are tainted by the appearance of partiality and must be vacated. Another petition, No. 91-1917, filed by Kaiser Cement Corp., requests that we order the district court (1) to discontinue its process of approving, ex parte, the class plaintiffs' use of escrowed settlement funds to defray litigation costs and (2) to unseal all the plaintiffs' past applications for use of such funds and the district court's rulings thereon.
Rejecting the contrary contention of the class plaintiffs, we conclude that mandamus is a proper means to force a district judge to disqualify himself or herself under 28 U.S.C. § 455. Furthermore, although we believe that Judge Kelly acted with integrity at all times, we also believe that the circumstances surrounding his attendance at the conference created an appearance of partiality that required disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). A writ of mandamus disqualifying him...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Diet Drugs Products Liability
...Global, Inc., 300 F.3d 368, 379 (3d Cir.2002); when it is not utilized as a substitute for appeal, see In re Sch. Asbestos Litig., 977 F.2d 764, 772 (3d Cir.1992) (quoting Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Republic of Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414, 1422 (3d Cir.1991)); and even when the right to the......
-
In re Pressman-Gutman Co., Inc.
...appeals must be chary in exercising that power," so as to avoid having mandamus used as a substitute for appeal. In re Sch. Asbestos Litig., 977 F.2d 764, 772 (3d Cir.1992). "Mandamus is disfavored because its broad use would threaten the policy against piecemeal appeals." Id. (citing Kerr ......
-
In re Kensington Intern. Ltd.
...harmed if a case is allowed to proceed before a judge who appears to be tainted.'" Alexander, 10 F.3d at 162 (quoting School Asbestos, 977 F.2d at 776). B. Who is the Hypothetical Reasonable Person under § 455(a)? Judge Wolin's opinion of February 2, 2004 supporting his order denying the re......
-
In re Briscoe
...assist in creating the extraordinary circumstances necessary to invoke mandamus, they are not alone sufficient. In re Sch. Asbestos Litig., 977 F.2d 764, 778 n. 14 (3d Cir.1992); see also In re Diet Drugs, 418 F.3d at 379 (rejecting "the contention that the scope (or even the complexity) of......
-
Watching the Hen House: Judicial Rulemaking and Judicial Review
...codefendant incompetent to stand trial). Edgar relied upon two additional cases that are informative: In re School Asbestos Litigation, 977 F.2d 764 (3d Cir. 1992) and Hathcock v. Navistar International Transportation Corp., 53 F.3d 36, 41 and n.4 (4th Cir. 1995). The judge in School Asbest......
-
The appearance of justice revisited.
...themselves in the character of checks, would be found to operate rather as cloaks than checks...."). Cf. In re School Asbestos Litig., 977 F.2d 764, 776 (3d Cir. 1992) ("The public's confidence in the judiciary, which may be irreparably harmed if a case is allowed to proceed before a judge ......
-
May judges attend privately funded educational programs? Should judicial education be privatized? Questions of judicial ethics and policy.
...favorable car rental arrangement from local company during and after its appearance before him). (227.) In re Sch. Asbestos Litig., 977 F.2d 764 (3d Cir. (228.) Id. at 779. (229.) Id. at 780. (230.) Id. (231.) Id. at 781. (232.) Id. at 781-82. (233.) Id. at 778-79. (234.) But cf. Supreme Co......