finding that circuit court abused its discretion when it denied a request for permissive intervention
How later courts described this case
- finding that circuit court abused its discretion when it denied a request for permissive intervention
- "An order denying intervention is final and immediately appealable."
- granting appeal from denial of motion to intervene
- “We have stated that a de novo standard of review applies to a circuit court’s decision to grant or deny a writ of mandamus.” (citation omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
STARCHER, J.,
concurring.
(Filed July 14, 2005)
In State ex rel. Chemtall Inc. v. Madden, 216 W.Va. 443, 457 , 607 S.E.2d 772, 786 (2004), I wrote separately and said that “I do not envy the circuit judge’s position in the instant case.” Again, in this ease, we have dumped an additional pile of medical monitoring cases into the circuit judge’s lap. These new cases share some of the same issues and defendants with the original Stem group of plaintiffs, but also have new issues and defendants, and much discovery remains to be done on these new cases. Now I can say I really do not envy the circuit judge’s position.
The circuit judge, however, should not be daunted by the decision to permit these new eases to be drawn into his courtroom. The record reveals that the circuit judge worked ably with counsel for the prior class of plaintiffs, the Stem group, and counsel for the defendants to competently and vigorously prepare the eases for trial. I see nothing to suggest that the addition of these new plaintiffs and defendants should alter that chemistry. The majority’s opinion expressly recognized that a court has the “inherent power to do all things that are reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of its jurisdiction.”
On remand, the circuit judge should exercise that authority to refine the issues in this oversized gargantuan of a lawsuit, and put this case back on track to a prompt, fair and inexpensive conclusion.