Lone Star Industries, Inc. v. McGraw
90 So. 3d 564
Miss.2012Background
- McGraw filed a 2009 personal-injury action in Claiborne County Circuit Court against six sand-manufacturers alleged to cause silicosis.
- After trial, four original defendants settled at trial; the case was temporarily unresolved pending amendments.
- McGraw sought leave to amend to add a wife as plaintiff and five new defendants; the court granted the First Amended Complaint on January 5, 2010.
- McGraw filed a Second Amended Complaint on January 19, 2010 adding Dependable Abrasives, Inc. without court approval.
- The six new defendants moved to strike the Second Amended Complaint and dismiss the First Amended Complaint; the trial court denied the strike motion.
- This interlocutory appeal questions whether the amendments complied with Rule 15(a) and related Rules regarding adding parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Second Amended Complaint needed court leave | McGraw maintained Rule 15(a) allowed amendment before responsive pleading | Veal requires court approval to add new defendants | Second Amended Complaint improper; required leave |
| Whether the First Amended Complaint was proper | Rule 15(a) permits amendment, timely filed | First Amended compliant but Second Amended not | First Amended proper; court did not abuse discretion |
| Does election of remedies apply | Remedies against all defendants are consistent, not inconsistent | Two remedies exist due to settlements | Election of remedies does not apply |
| Does judicial estoppel apply | Inconsistent deposition testimony not estoppel, case same action | Estoppel could apply to inconsistent positions | Judicial estoppel not applicable; jury should decide credibility |
| Does claim-splitting apply | Single action; no splitting | Proceedings constitute multiple actions | No claim-splitting; single action |
Key Cases Cited
- Veal v. J.P. Morgan Trust Co., N.A., 955 So.2d 843 (Miss.2007) (adding new defendants requires court approval per Rule 21 read with Rule 15)
- Wilner v. White, 929 So.2d 315 (Miss.2006) (untimely amendment; relates back; distinguishable here)
- Adams v. Baptist Memorial Hospital-Desoto, Inc., 965 So.2d 652 (Miss.2007) (prohibits claim-splitting in separate actions; single action context used)
- Estes v. Starnes, 732 So.2d 251 (Miss.1999) (freely give leave to amend if meritorious)
- Moeller v. Am. Guarantee & Liab. Ins. Co., 812 So.2d 953 (Miss.2002) (abuse of discretion standard for leave to amend)