In Re Fema Trailer Formaldahyde Products Liability
628 F.3d 157
| 5th Cir. | 2010Background
- Mass-tort MDL: FEMA trailer formaldehyde litigation following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita; Bell family among thousands sued multiple defendants.
- Bell case selected as bellwether against Keystone RV; Diana Bell initially designated, then withdrew with prejudice; Raymond Bell became next bellwether candidate.
- Raymond Bell sought to substitute a different bellwether plaintiff or obtain a continuance of the January 2010 trial; cited work, child care, and schooling concerns.
- Court denied substitution and continuance but offered to instruct the jury on Bell’s anticipated absences during trial.
- Bell moved to dismiss without prejudice; court dismissed with prejudice to preserve efficiency and integrity of mass-bellwether process.
- Bell appealed three orders; court reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed dismissal with prejudice as a necessary management tool in MDL context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of substitution/continuance was an abuse of discretion | Bell argued substitution/continuance would prevent unfair prejudice to him and others. | Keystone contended Bell’s inconvenience did not distinguish him from other plaintiffs and would disrupt trial plan. | No abuse; court properly balanced mass-litigation efficiency and individual circumstances. |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice on Bell’s motion was proper | Bell sought dismissal without prejudice to refile later; argued lack of prejudice and desire to avoid harsh sanction. | Keystone urged dismissal to prevent waste and preserve orderly bellwether process; prejudice to others minimized by mandate. | Dismissal with prejudice affirmed as proper to maintain orderly resolution of MDL cases. |
| Whether the court properly considered prejudice to non-movants and mass-litigation goals | Bell asserted unconditional dismissal would prejudice co-plaintiffs and defendants by restarting bellwether prep. | Court emphasized need to avoid encouraging ‘jumping ship’ tactics and to keep centralized trial management. | Court acted within discretion to safeguard efficiency and fairness in a multi-plaintiff, multi-defendant context. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stalnaker, 571 F.3d 428 (5th Cir. 2009) (totality of circumstances standard for continuance denials)
- German, 486 F.3d 849 (5th Cir. 2007) (serious prejudice required to find abuse of discretion on continuance)
- Streber v. Hunter, 221 F.3d 701 (5th Cir. 2000) (district courts have broad scheduling discretion)
- Transamerica Ins. Co. v. Avenell, 66 F.3d 715 (5th Cir. 1995) (mass-litigation management and continuances)
- Elbaor v. Tripath Imaging, Inc., 279 F.3d 314 (5th Cir. 2002) (court must tailor conditions to cure prejudice when dismissing under Rule 41(a)(2))
- Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Costa Lines Cargo Servs., Inc., 903 F.2d 352 (5th Cir. 1990) (unfair prejudice considerations in voluntary dismissals)