794 S.E.2d 10
W. Va.2016Background
- Plaintiffs (40 total) sued Pfizer in McDowell County, WV alleging Lipitor caused diabetes; 26 plaintiffs from Texas, 4 from New York, 10 from West Virginia.
- Pfizer removed to federal court, was remanded, sought Mass Litigation Panel transfer, then withdrew after Mazzone I guidance; Pfizer preserved inconvenient forum as a defense.
- The circuit court issued a scheduling order (Aug 14, 2015) setting Sept 1, 2015 as the dispositive-motions deadline and allowing plaintiffs to contest timeliness.
- Pfizer filed a forum non conveniens motion on Sept 1, 2015; the court held a hearing and on June 16, 2016 dismissed the non‑West Virginia plaintiffs without prejudice (refiling allowed in home states within 150 days) after finding the motion timely or properly extended for good cause.
- Petitioners sought a writ of prohibition to prevent enforcement of the dismissal; the West Virginia Supreme Court denied the writ after review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of forum non conveniens motion | Motion was untimely under W.Va. Code § 56-1-1a(b); scheduling order improperly expanded statutory deadline | Scheduling order was proper; statute permits court to extend filing period for good cause; Pfizer filed within the schedule | Court: scheduling order + statutory "good cause" authorized extension; no abuse of discretion, motion timely |
| Merits of forum non conveniens dismissal | Dismissal inappropriate; plaintiffs entitled to deference in forum choice; Texas forum may be inadequate | West Virginia not convenient for nonresident claims; Texas/New York provide adequate alternative forums; deference diminished for nonresidents | Court: trial court properly applied the eight statutory factors and permissibly dismissed non‑resident plaintiffs in favor of home‑state forums |
| Adequacy of alternative forum (Texas) | (Raised on appeal) Texas is inadequate to remedy Texas plaintiffs | Texas provides remedy; Pfizer amenable to process; tolling/statute issues not fatal | Court: issue waived because not argued below; alternatively, no showing Texas provides no remedy, so alternate forum exists |
| Severance/Rule 20 joinder argument | Plaintiffs contended non‑resident plaintiffs could not be severed from properly joined West Virginia plaintiffs | Defendant: severance appropriate under forum non conveniens; Mazzone II supports separate treatment | Court: no merit to argument; Mazzone II permits dismissing nonresidents while West Virginia plaintiffs proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Caruso v. Pearce, 223 W.Va. 544 (W. Va. 2009) (trial courts must enter and may use scheduling orders under Rule 16 to manage cases)
- State ex rel. Peacher v. Sencindiver, 160 W.Va. 314 (W. Va. 1977) (writ of prohibition not available for mere abuse of discretion)
- Hinkle v. Black, 164 W.Va. 112 (W. Va. 1979) (prohibition limited to clear legal errors likely to require reversal)
- State ex rel. Hoover v. Berger, 199 W.Va. 12 (W. Va. 1996) (factors guiding discretionary use of prohibition)
- Cannelton Indus. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am., 194 W.Va. 186 (W. Va. 1994) (forum non conveniens reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State ex rel. Mylan, Inc. v. Zakaib, 227 W.Va. 641 (W. Va. 2011) (statutory requirement to consider eight forum non conveniens factors)
- Mace v. Mylan Pharm., Inc., 227 W.Va. 666 (W. Va. 2011) (alternate forum presumed to exist if defendant amenable; defeated only if alternative provides no remedy at all)
- State ex rel. J.C. v. Mazzone, 233 W.Va. 457 (W. Va. 2014) (Mass Litigation Panel referral limits)
- State ex rel. J.C. v. Mazzone, 235 W.Va. 151 (W. Va. 2015) (Mazzone II) (recognizes trial-court docket control and separate treatment of nonresident plaintiffs)
- State ex rel. Weirton Med. Ctr. v. Mazzone, 214 W.Va. 146 (W. Va. 2002) (scheduling orders limit times for motions and discovery)