R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Stidham, 141 A.3d 1

Background

Baltimore City created a special asbestos docket and bespoke procedures (inactive docket, discovery rules, master files) to manage an enormous volume of asbestos personal-injury/wrongful-death litigation beginning in the 1980s–1990s.
Rule 16-306 (formerly Rule 1211A / 16-203) permits an inactive asbestos docket and stays routine proceedings while cases are inactive; administrative orders implement criteria for removal to active docket.
Plaintiffs in Stidham alleged lung cancer caused by a synergistic effect of asbestos exposure and cigarette smoking and, after initially suing asbestos defendants, amended to add tobacco defendants 15 months later.
The Circuit Court dismissed the tobacco companies from the asbestos-docket case “without prejudice with the right to refile,” relying on the court’s long-standing practice of not joining tobacco and asbestos defendants on the asbestos docket; plaintiffs sought reinstatement but were denied; the court later entered final judgment disposing of all remaining asbestos claims.
The Court of Special Appeals dismissed the appeal as moot (no asbestos defendants left to join) but exercised discretion to comment on the joinder issue because it is recurring and evades review; this Court granted certiorari.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Final-judgment appealability	Stidham: orders dismissing tobacco defendants and subsequent denials created an appealable final judgment once court later disposed of asbestos claims	Tobacco: dismissal without prejudice with right to refile was final as to those defendants and final judgment existed after all claims resolved	There was a final judgment: the 2009 dismissal plus 2011 denial and subsequent judgments disposing all asbestos claims resulted in final adjudication of the action
Mootness of joinder challenge	Stidham: reversal could restore tobacco defendants to the original case on asbestos docket and provide effective relief	Tobacco: joinder is impossible now (no asbestos defendants remain); no effective remedy exists — appeal is moot	Appeal is moot: no effective relief (cannot rejoin tobacco defendants to a case that no longer contains asbestos defendants on the asbestos docket)
Whether appellate court may address merits despite mootness	Stidham: need review because Circuit Court’s practice prevents appellate review across many similar cases	Tobacco: mootness forecloses merits review	Courts may address recurring issues that otherwise evade review; Court of Special Appeals and this Court may (and did) comment for guidance though the appeal is dismissed
Proper application of Md. Rule 2-212 joinder standard	Stidham: joinder proper because claims arise from same exposure series and present common legal/factual questions (synergy, knowledge)	Tobacco: joinder inappropriate because distinct products/procedures, asbestos docket procedures would prejudice tobacco defendants and disrupt case management	Trial courts may deny joinder in appropriate circumstances (e.g., late joinder after discovery and scheduling completed); moving forward, timely joinder requires parties to explain how asbestos-docket procedures and joinder logistics will be handled

Key Cases Cited

ACandS v. Godwin, 340 Md. 334 (discussion of Baltimore asbestos docket creation and case management)
Brown v. Gress, 378 Md. 667 (reversing Court of Special Appeals’ entry of final judgment under Rule 2-602 in prior synergy/joinder dispute)
Gress v. ACandS, 150 Md. App. 369 (Court of Special Appeals decision addressing joinder of tobacco and asbestos defendants)
Silbersack v. ACandS, 402 Md. 673 (refusal to compel trial judge to vacate dismissal or enter Rule 2-602 judgment in similar synergy joinder context)
Hariri v. Dahne, 412 Md. 674 (rule that order terminating action is final and appealable)
Moore v. Pomory, 329 Md. 428 (dismissal with leave to amend is not final)
Metro Maintenance Sys. v. Milburn, 442 Md. 289 (orders anticipating further proceedings are not final)
Carter v. Wallace & Gale, 439 Md. 333 (purpose of joinder rules: simplify, avoid duplicative trials)