Scott v. Monsanto Co.
| Decision Date | 30 March 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-6304,87-6304 |
| Citation | 868 F.2d 786 |
| Parties | Cecil SCOTT, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, Cross-Appellants, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Appellants, Cross-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Jonathan B. Shoebotham, Woodard, Hall & Primm, Houston, Tex., Walter J. Crawford, Jr., Wells, Peyton, Beard, Greenberg, Hunt & Crawford, Beaumont, Tex., Mark G. Arnold, Husch, Eppenberger, Donohue, Cornfeld & Jenkins, St. Louis, Mo., Robert A. Hall, Houston, Tex., for defendants-appellants, cross-appellees.
David M. Lacey, Michael A. Pohl, Gilpin, Pohl & Bennett, Houston, Tex., Stephen B. Murray, New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs-appellees, cross-appellants.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Before REAVLEY, WILLIAMS and JONES, Circuit Judges.
This case involves the claims of 126 plaintiffs against Monsanto Company, alleging liability for physical injuries resulting from exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), a product formerly manufactured by Monsanto. A bellwether trial with eight plaintiffs was held and the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Monsanto. Upon consideration of posttrial motions from all parties, the district court entered orders granting a new trial for the eight plaintiffs and then dismissing the causes of action of all plaintiffs for lack of jurisdiction. Monsanto asks that both orders be reversed and seeks judgment on the jury verdict. We vacate the district court's orders and remand for disposition consistent with this opinion.
This product liability action was originally filed in November 1984 by a single plaintiff against General Electric. The fifth amended complaint presented the final form of this litigation with the claims of 126 plaintiffs against a single defendant, Monsanto Company. Federal court jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship. The plaintiffs are residents of Alabama, Indiana, Tennessee, and Texas. Monsanto is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Missouri.
The district court, Eastern District of Texas, denied Monsanto's pretrial motion to sever and transfer the plaintiffs' claims. Because a single trial was deemed too burdensome, the district court ordered ten plaintiffs be selected for a "bellwether" trial. See Manual for Complex Litigation 2d, Sec. 33.26 (1985). Eight plaintiffs eventually participated in the trial at issue in this appeal. This group of plaintiffs includes the only resident of the Eastern District of Texas who is party to the action.
The trial lasted over two weeks and featured the testimony of over 60 witnesses. The evidence centered primarily on the nature of the plaintiffs' exposure to PCBs and the causal relationship between PCBs and the plaintiffs' ailments. Issues of strict liability and negligence were submitted to the jury. After an hour and fifteen minute's deliberation, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Monsanto on all claims of the eight trial plaintiffs.
Numerous motions from all parties were submitted posttrial to the district court. Monsanto moved to enter judgment on the jury verdict and to sever and transfer the remaining claims. The plaintiffs moved for a new trial. After a hearing but before the district court's decision, Monsanto filed its first amended motion to dismiss or transfer. The district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a new trial. In addition, the district court dismissed the case--the claims and causes of action of all plaintiffs--for lack of jurisdiction.
Monsanto appeals from the district court rulings. First, Monsanto contends that the new trial order is an abuse of the court's discretion. Second, Monsanto contends the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction; the company denies that its first amended motion to dismiss or transfer urged the dismissal of the tried and determined claims. Monsanto requests entry of judgment on the jury verdict and transfer of the remaining untried claims. The plaintiffs' cross-appeal alleges the district court erred in granting Monsanto's motion for a protective order and in denying plaintiffs' motion for sanctions for abuse of discovery.
The district court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction upon consideration of previous motions reurged by Monsanto. Both before and after the trial, Monsanto asserted the merits of transferring the claims to the districts in which they arose. In its posttrial first amended motion to dismiss or transfer, Monsanto incorporated any previously made arguments in support of dismissal or transfer of the remaining untried causes of action. The district court's order does not state the basis on which jurisdiction, either personal or subject matter, was found to be absent. At least one pretrial motion to dismiss alleged a lack of diversity; the dismissal of all defendants save Monsanto, however, perfected diversity. Another argument urged in earlier motions was improper venue.
Monsanto contends the district court incorrectly dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. In response, the plaintiffs argue that Monsanto cannot appeal the grant of its own motion. There is merit, however, to Monsanto's contention that the motion granted by the court is not the motion urged by Monsanto. Dismissal of all the claims wipes out a favorable jury verdict; that Monsanto intended to request the transfer or dismissal of only the remaining untried claims is evident.
The district court's jurisdiction over the case is not defective for lack of diversity. The plaintiffs' claim that dismissal was nonetheless proper under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. That doctrine, however, is not applicable if jurisdiction is lacking or venue is improper. See Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 504, 67 S.Ct. 839, 841, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947); Driscoll v. New Orleans Steamboat Co., 633 F.2d 1158, 1159 n. 1 (5th Cir.1981) (citing 15 Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure 2d Sec. 3828 (1986)). A dismissal for lack of jurisdiction on the basis of forum non conveniens, therefore, would be inappropriate. Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1404(a), transfer is the proper method for a change of venue under such circumstances.
If venue is improper, the district court may dismiss or transfer depending on the interests of justice. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1406(a). The district court repeatedly denied Monsanto's pretrial motions to dismiss or transfer the claims. In addition, the district court appears to have adequate support for its decision to try the bellwether trial in the Eastern District of Texas. On the facts of this case, dismissal of all the claims under Sec. 1406(a), after a jury verdict has been returned on some of those claims, would be error. There appears to be no other basis upon which the district court could have found jurisdiction, over at least the claims of the eight trial plaintiffs, to be absent. The district court's order dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction is vacated.
The grant or denial of a new trial is within the discretion of the district court. A greater degree of scrutiny, however, is given to the grant of a new trial. Conway v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc., 610 F.2d 360, 362-63 (5th Cir.1980) (per curiam). In review of cases such as this one, the broad discretion allowed to the trial court is tempered by the deference due to a jury. See Brun-Jacobo v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 847 F.2d 242, 244 (5th Cir.1988); Shows v. Jamison Bedding, Inc., 671 F.2d 927, 930 (5th Cir.1982); Conway, 610 F.2d at 362. A new trial may be appropriate if the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the amount awarded is excessive, or the trial was unfair or marred by prejudicial error. Smith v. Transworld Drilling Co., 773 F.2d 610, 613 (5th Cir.1985). If the new trial is granted on evidentiary grounds, the jury's verdict must be "against the great--not merely the greater--weight of the evidence." Conway, 610 F.2d at 363.
The district court in this case expressed its inclination to grant a new trial to avert a "miscarriage of justice." In its view, the evidence left no question that the plaintiffs were exposed to PCBs and that PCBs had a detrimental effect on their health. The district court considered no single ground asserted by the plaintiffs to be a sufficient basis upon which to grant a new trial. The combined effect of the "grounds taken together, plus the miscarriage of justice" influenced the district court's decision to grant the plaintiffs' motion for a new trial.
The plaintiffs argue in support of a new trial on a number of points. First, in light of the testimony presented at trial, the plaintiffs contend that the jury's verdict is against the great weight of the evidence. Second, the plaintiffs contend that a number of occurrences tainted the proceedings and denied them a fair trial. The plaintiffs claim that the defendant misrepresented evidence to the jury and irreparably harmed their theory of medical causation. The plaintiffs also claim that Monsanto's behavior during discovery and an erroneously granted protective order prejudiced the preparation and presentation of their case. In addition, the plaintiffs allege the hurried nature of the proceedings compromised their case as evidenced by the jury verdict rendered in a little over an hour's time.
The plaintiffs' strongest argument in support of a new trial is that the great weight of the evidence was against the jury verdict. Against the great weight of the evidence is a standard not easily met. Shows, 671 F.2d at 931. The record must be closely examined. Several factors help guide the review of an order granting a new trial: (1) whether the issues are simple; (2) whether the evidence is undisputed; and (3) whether the trial proceedings...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter v. Cedar Point Oil Co. Inc.
...We review the court's finding that Cedar Point violated the discovery order for an abuse of discretion. See Scott v. Monsanto Co., 868 F.2d 786, 793 (5th Cir.1989) (district court's rulings on discovery matters will only be reversed for abuse of discretion). We apply the same standard in re......
-
Allen v. Takeda Pharms. N. Am., Inc. (In re Actos®), Case No. 6:12-cv-00064-RFD-PJH
...Cir.1979). 17. Sibley, 184 F.3d at 487. 18. Winter v. Brenner Tank, Inc., 926 F.2d 468, 471 (5th Cir. 1991), quoting Scott v. Monsanto Co., 868 F.2d 786 (5th Cir. 1989). 19. See Rec. Doc. 3933, at 29-44. 20. See Rec. Doc. 4330, at 12, 36. 21. See Rec. Doc. 3933, at 53-69. 22. See Rec. Doc. ......
-
In re Columbia Medical Center
...in granting a new trial on its own initiative, "must specify the reasons in its order." FED.R.CIV.P. 59(d). In Scott v. Monsanto Co., 868 F.2d 786, 791 (5th Cir.1989), the Fifth Circuit reasoned that a trial court's discretion in granting a new trial is not "impenetrable" and that "careful ......
-
U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Commonwealth Advisors, Inc.
...Co., No. 3:08-CV-1486-D, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51609, at *7, 2010 WL 2044477, at *2 (N.D. Tex. May 24, 2010) (citing Scott v. Monsanto Co., 868 F.2d 786, 793 (5th Cir. 1989) (citing Eastway Gen. Hosp. v. Eastway Women's Clinic, Inc., 737 F.2d 503, 505 (5th Cir. 1984))); Arters v. Univision ......