School Asbestos Litigation, In re, 45

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
Citation977 F.2d 764
Docket NumberB,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 Date23 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.

OPINION OF THE COURT

BECKER, Circuit Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

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
200 cases
  • In re Diet Drugs Products Liability
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • March 10, 2005
    ...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.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • August 18, 2006
    ...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.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • May 17, 2004
    ...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
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • May 15, 2006
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Watching the Hen House: Judicial Rulemaking and Judicial Review
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 91, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...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.
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 86 No. 3, March 1996
    • March 22, 1996
    ...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.
    • United States
    • Fordham Urban Law Journal Vol. 29 No. 3, February 2002
    • February 1, 2002
    ...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......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT