Collins v. Koppers, Inc.
2011 Miss. LEXIS 216
| Miss. | 2011Background
- Collins sued multiple defendants for injuries from alleged environmental contamination at a wood-treatment facility; court ordered her to provide specific expert information linking injuries to exposure; she repeatedly failed to comply and discovery produced boilerplate responses; the trial court severed mass-joinder claims and later dismissed Collins’s individual complaint with prejudice for noncompliance; the court also awarded sanctions and fees against Collins and her attorneys; on appeal, Collins argues Rule 41(b) dismissal, lack of hearing on summary judgment, and sanctions/fees challenges.
- Collins refiled her complaint in March 2006 naming Hoppers, Beazer East, Three Rivers Management, and Illinois Central; she claimed exposure to toxic chemicals caused heart issues, high blood pressure, dizziness, and diabetes.
- Defendants argued Collins failed to provide core Mangialardi-based information and her complaint remained boilerplate; trial court again required detailed expert-based causation information and ultimately dismissed with prejudice after Collins failed to comply.
- The trial court found Collins’s discovery defied orders for three years, that lesser sanctions were insufficient, and that there was intentional delay; sanctions under Rule 11 and the Litigation Accountability Act were awarded.
- The court concluded there was no abuse of discretion in dismissing with prejudice, and sanctions/fee awards were reasonable, making the summary-judgment issue moot.
- The Angle plaintiffs, including Collins, were largely represented by the same counsel; the court repeatedly emphasized the bar's discretion to manage pretrial discovery and sanctions to ensure timely adjudication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 41(b) dismissal for failure to comply | Collins argues improper delay and lack of lesser sanctions | Defendants contend repeated noncompliance justifies dismissal | No abuse of discretion; dismissal affirmed |
| Sanctions under Rule 11 and LAA affirmed | Sanctions were unwarranted/frivolous | Complaint frivolous, lacking proof | Sanctions upheld; fees approved |
| Reasonableness of attorneys’ fees | Fees were excessive or improperly calculated | Fees reasonable under McKee factors and lodestar approach | Fees deemed reasonable and properly calculated |
Key Cases Cited
- Harold’s Auto Parts v. Mangialardi, 889 So.2d 493 (Miss. 2004) (pleadings should have core information; sanctions encouraged)
- Wilson v. Nance, 4 So.3d 336 (Miss. 2009) (aggravating factors and lesser sanctions considerations)
- Bowie v. Montfort Jones Mem’l Hosp., 861 So.2d 1037 (Miss. 2003) (trial judges may impose sanctions for discovery delays)
- Foster v. Ross, 804 So.2d 1018 (Miss. 2002) (comparable sanction framework for lack of evidence)
- McKee v. McKee, 418 So.2d 764 (Miss. 1982) (establishes McKee factors for evaluating fees; Rule 1.5 factors for professional conduct)
- BellSouth Personal Communications, LLC v. Board of Supervisors, 912 So.2d 486 (Miss. 2005) (lodestar method; hours times rate; eight Rule 1.5 factors)