 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bell v. ExxonMobil Corp.3/3/2005
Lonnie Bell, Daniel Davis, Niecy Davis, Kenneth Gregory Jr., Jimmy Hargrove, Elba Hildago, Raymond LeVan, Ann Motton, Alfred H. Phillips, Elijah Simien, Mary Simien, Tia Bailey, Jackie Brown, Michael Brown, Akeiterra Hopson, I'eshia McAlpin, Justin McAlpin, Chloedell Mercer, Horacio Molina, Emily Moore, Renny Reynolds, Tokeshisha Simien, and Kevin Whittaker Jr. ("appellants") appeal from an order dismissing their claims against ExxonMobil Corporation d/b/a ExxonMobil Chemical Company ("appellee") with prejudice for failure to conform to a pre-trial case management order ("Lone Pine order") requiring them to file affidavits of personal injury and property damage within a 120-day period. We determine whether the trial court's dismissal of appellants' cases constitutes an abuse of discretion by unfairly or unjustly sanctioning the appellants for their failure to comply with the order. We affirm.
Factual History
Between July 17 and July 30, 2000, the ExxonMobil plant in Baytown, Texas suffered an explosion and a chemical release. In early 2001, 71 plaintiffs filed suit in the 215th District Court against appellee. The court, on motion from appellee, entered Case Management Order #1 (the Lone Pine order) requiring plaintiffs to present expert affidavits as to their personal injury and property damage. In December 2001, all plaintiffs non-suited their claims, thereby avoiding compliance with the Lone Pine order. Six and a half weeks later, 50 of these same plaintiffs re-filed an identical suit in the 189th District Court. The court transferred this new action back to the 215th District Court. Appellee moved for dismissal based on non-compliance with the Lone Pine order.
Rather than dismissing the claims, the court, on July 28, 2002, signed a nearly-identical second Lone Pine order. As had the first, the second Lone Pine order required that each plaintiff file an expert report detailing the manner and duration of the exposure the plaintiff had experienced, the chemicals to which the plaintiff was exposed, and, to a reasonable medical probability, the injury sustained because of that exposure. It also required expert affidavits detailing the location of the property damage claimed in the plaintiffs' petition, the amount of economic injury, and the causative link between the chemical exposure and the damage. The order gave plaintiffs 30 days in which to comply. The order further provided that "the failure of any plaintiff to file with the Court and serve on all counsel of record the affidavits required by this Order . . . may result in the dismissal with prejudice of that portion (personal injury or property damage or both) of his or her claims in this case." The order gave appellee 30 days from its receipt of any affidavits to object to any failure to comply with the order and further provided that "the Court will review said affidavits and should the Court agree that said affidavits do not fully comply, such failure shall result in the dismissal with prejudice of that portion . . . of his or her claim." Plaintiffs made no objection to the Lone Pine order.
At conferences on September 30 and October 2, 2002, the trial court heard argument on appellee's second motion to dismiss for plaintiffs' failure to comply with the Lone Pine order. The plaintiffs made their first objection to the Lone Pine order on October 1st. On October 8th, the trial court dismissed all plaintiffs' claims, but offered to reinstate the claims of any plaintiffs who complied with the Lone Pine order by November 7, 2002.
Twenty-seven plaintiffs complied, and the court reinstated their claims. Appellants made no real attempt to comply and offered no explanation for their failure. Appel
Page 1 2 3 4 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|