IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2003-IA-00881-SCT
ROCHELLE CULBERT, ET AL.
v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, MALLAN G. MORGAN,
M.D., AND SAV-ON-DRUGS OF COLUMBIA, INC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 4/16/2003
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. LAMAR PICKARD
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS: RICHARD CLINTON STRONG
KEN R. ADCOCK
MARK D. MORRISON
LESTER JOSEPH MENG, III
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: DONNA BROWN JACOBS
CHRISTY D. JONES
JOHN C. HENEGAN
ROBERT L. JOHNSON, III
KARI LOUISE FOSTER
CHRIS J. WALKER
JOHN LEWIS HINKLE
AL NUZZO
THOMAS M. LOUIS
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED AND REMANDED - 09/23/2004
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
CONSOLIDATED WITH
NO. 2003-IA-00918-SCT
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, INC. AND JOHNSON
& JOHNSON
v.
ROCHELLE CULBERT, ET AL.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 4/16/2003
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. LAMAR PICKARD
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS: DONNA BROWN JACOBS
CHRISTY D. JONES
ANITA MODAK-TRURAN
JOHN C. HENEGAN
ROBERT L. JOHNSON, III
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: RICHARD CLINTON STRONG
KEN R. ADCOCK
MARK D. MORRISON
LESTER JOSEPH MENG, III
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY
DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED - 09/23/2004
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE COBB, P.J., EASLEY AND GRAVES, JJ.
EASLEY, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
¶1. Thirty plaintiffs, collectively known as the "Plaintiffs," filed suit in Jefferson County Circuit Court
for injuries allegedly sustained from using the prescription drug Propulsid. Two of those plaintiffs were from
Jefferson County, ten are Mississippi residents who live in eight different counties and eighteen reside out-
of-state. The two plaintiffs that are Jefferson County residents are Clara Malone and Janice Davis. The
filed complaint named as defendants, the makers of Propulsid, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., which is a
corporation based in New Jersey; Janssen’s New Jersey-based parent corporation, Johnson & Johnson
(collectively, “Janssen”); Ashraf M. Nofal, M.D.; Nathan Bradford, M.D.; Stephen Harless, M.D.; Simon
2
Cofrancesco, D.O.1; Mallan Morgan, M.D.; Bankston Pharmacy; Henrich Drug Store, Inc.; Conova's City
Drug Store; Fred's Pharmacy, Inc.; Eckerd Corporation; Rite-Aid/K&B; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; Condon's
East Union Pharmacy; Kroger Limited Partnership I; People's Drug Store; Sav-on Drugs, Inc., who
allegedly filled the prescriptions and John Does 1-10 as yet unidentified individuals, collectively identified
as the "Defendants."
¶2. Janssen contends that the Plaintiffs’ claims were improperly joined. Janssen argues that the
Plaintiffs took Propulsid at different times, under different labels and warnings and in response to different
marketing materials. Janssen further contends that the Plaintiffs have different pre-existing conditions that
might bear upon any injury. Because of those differences, Janssen sought to have the Plaintiffs' joinder in
Jefferson County severed, alleging that the inquiries into alleged defective design, failure to warn, breach
of warranty and misrepresentation will be wholly distinct in each plaintiff's case. Furthermore, Janssen
states that none of the non-Jefferson County Plaintiffs purchased the allegedly defective product or received
medical treatment in Jefferson County.
¶3. The trial court granted Janssen’s motion to sever as to any plaintiffs without original jurisdiction
and venue in Jefferson County. The Plaintiffs filed a motion for clarification and rehearing of, order. The
trial court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for clarification and rehearing, in part, as to clarification and denied,
in part, as to rehearing. The trial court's order also denied the Plaintiffs' request to certify the case for
interlocutory appeal. The trial court's order stated that "those plaintiffs without original jurisdiction in
Jefferson County, Mississippi, ... should be transferred to the court or courts of the plaintiffs' counsel's
1
Dr. Confranceso was granted summary judgment by the trial court and is not a party to this case
on appeal.
3
choosing as provided for in the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure." However, the trial court's order did
not specify to which counties the cases were to be transferred. On cross-appeal, the Defendants seek to
have this Court remand this matter to the trial court to order the transfer into the appropriate jurisdictions
for the in-state Plaintiffs without venue in Jefferson County and dismissal of the out-of-state Plaintiffs under
the doctrine of forum non conveniens, or in the alternative, for lack of venue.2
¶4. In turn, we granted permission for these interlocutory appeals. Justice Kay Cobb issued an order
granting the Plaintiffs' petition for interlocutory appeal by permission and the Defendants' cross-petition for
interlocutory appeal pursuant to M.R.A.P. 5 (a). Justice Cobb also executed an order on behalf of the
Court declining the Plaintiffs' request to consolidate this matter with Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. v.
Keys, No. 2003-IA-00275-SCT.
DISCUSSION
¶5. The standard of review regarding the joinder of Plaintiffs and the correctness of venue used by this
Court is to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion. Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. v.
Armond, 866 So.2d 1092, 1097 (Miss. 2004). We will not disturb a plaintiff's choice of venue unless
there is no credible evidence supporting the factual basis for the claim of venue. Burgess v. Lucky, 674
So.2d 506, 510 (Miss. 1996). See also Armond, 866 So. 2d at 1098 (“plaintiff’s choice of a forum
should not be disturbed except for weighty reasons”). As in Armond, our review in this case turns on
2
As the argument in support of the 18 out-of-state Plaintiffs being allowed to be joined with the
in-state-Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs state that "Janssen is already defending numerous claims resulting from the
use of Propulsid in Mississippi...and will not result in unnecessary expense or trouble for the Defendant."
The Plaintiffs further contend that since "there are several Mississippi Plaintiffs already involved...there is
a local interest in deciding these cases in Mississippi and the administrative costs on the courts will not
increase."
4
whether the trial court properly applied M.R.C.P. 20, our permissive joinder rule. Armond, 866 So. 2d
at 1094. We find that Armond controls the disposition of the substantive issues raised by the parties on
appeal.
¶6. In Scott v. Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., 876 So.2d 306 (Miss. 2004), this Court recently
addressed a similar factual situation as the case at hand, stating:
It is imperative we strike a balance in our jurisprudence between the need for fairness to
the parties and judicial economy. In the end, the benefits of efficiency must never be
purchased at the cost of fairness. Armond, 866 So.2d at 1100 (quoting Malcolm v.
Nat'l Gypsum Co., 995 F.2d 346, 350 (2d Cir.1993)). For "it is possible to go too far
in the interests of expediency and to sacrifice basic fairness in the process." Malcolm,
995 F.2d at 354. The discretion to consolidate cases is restrained by our paramount
concern for a fair and impartial trial for all parties, plaintiffs and defendants. Armond, 866
So.2d at 1100. There is an innate danger in asking jurors to assimilate vast amounts of
information against a variety of defendants and then sort through that information to find
what bits of it apply to which defendant.
¶7. Here, as in Scott, a jury might well be overwhelmed with thirty separate fact patterns that are
offered to prove medical malpractice. See Scott, 876 So.2d at 308. That is why in Armond, 866 So.
2d at 1102, we ordered the claims against the defendant physicians severed. See Scott, 876 So.2d at
308. "The two prongs of Rule 20 must always be met. While it does not rise to the level of a distinct factor
in the joinder analysis, an important consideration is if the joinder will result in undue prejudice to the
parties." Id.
¶8. Our decisions in Armond and Scott fully control the case at hand. Accordingly, we affirm the
trial court's decision to sever the Plaintiffs' claims. We further affirm the trial court's April 17, 2003, order
granting clarification as it required the Plaintiffs to provide the trial court an order of transfer, "transferring
5
the claims of those Plaintiffs without jurisdiction in Jefferson County, Mississippi,... to the court or courts
of the Plaintiffs' counsel's choosing as provided for in the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure." Miss.
Code Ann. § 11-11-17 provides for the transfer, rather than dismissal, of an action that lacks venue to the
venue which it belongs.3 M.R.C.P. 82(d) provides:
When an action is filed laying venue in the wrong county, the action shall not be dismissed,
but the court, on timely motion, shall transfer the action to the court in which it might
properly have been filed and the case shall proceed as though originally filed therein....The
plaintiff shall have the right to select the court to which the action shall be transferred in the
event the action might properly have been filed in more than one court.
¶9. Accordingly, we remand this case to the trial court for the Plaintiffs to comply with the trial court's
order to provide an order of transfer as to the ten in-state Plaintiffs' claims to the venues where the claims
could have been properly filed. We further remand this case to the trial court to dismiss the eighteen out-
of-state Plaintiffs' claims without prejudice.
¶10. Finally, we find that two Jefferson County Plaintiffs, Clara Malone and Janice Davis, do not meet
the same transaction or occurrence test established by this Court in Armond. Therefore, we further
instruct the trial court to sever the claims of the improperly joined Jefferson County plaintiffs for separate
trials.
CONCLUSION
¶11. Therefore, for the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County,
Mississippi, is affirmed as to No. 2003-IA-00881-SCT and reversed as to No. 2003-IA-00918-SCT,
3
Miss. Code Ann. § 11-11-3 provides where civil actions may be commenced. Miss. Code Ann.
§ 11-11-3 also references transfer to the proper county under Miss. Code Ann. § 11-11-17 when a civil
action is brought in an improper county.
6
and these cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
¶12. NO. 2003-IA-00881-SCT; AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.
NO. 2003-IA-00918-SCT; REVERSED AND REMANDED.
SMITH, C.J., WALLER AND COBB, P.JJ., CARLSON AND DICKINSON, JJ.,
CONCUR. GRAVES, J., CONCURS IN PART. DIAZ AND RANDOLPH, JJ., NOT
PARTICIPATING.
7
Rochelle Culbert v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc.
Combined Opinion