School Asbestos Litigation, In re

Page 764

977 F.2d 764

61 USLW 2268, 24 Fed.R.Serv.3d 39, 78

Ed. Law Rep. 234

In re SCHOOL ASBESTOS LITIGATION.

PFIZER INC., Petitioner, v. The Honorable James McGirr KELLY, Nominal Respondent,

Barnwell School District No. 45, School District of

Lancaster, Manheim Township School District,

Lampeter-Strasburg School District, Board of Education of

the Memphis City Schools, and a Conditionally Certified

Class, Respondents,

Lac D'Amiante Du Quebec, Ltee., Intervenor.

KAISER CEMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. The Honorable James McGirr KELLY, Nominal Respondent,

School District of Lancaster, Manheim Township School

District, Lampeter-Strasburg School District, Respondents,

Lac D'Amiante Du Quebec, Ltee, Intervenor.

ACandS, INC., Petitioner, v. The Honorable James McGirr KELLY, Nominal Respondent,

Barnwell School District No. 45, Board of Education of the

Memphis City Schools, and a Conditionally

Certified Class, Respondents,

Lac D'Amiante Du Quebec, Ltee, Intervenor.

ASTEN GROUP, INC., Petitioner, v. The Honorable James McGirr KELLY, Nominal Respondent,

Barnwell School District No. 45, Board of Education of the

Memphis City Schools, and a Conditionally

Certified Class, Respondents,

Lac D'Amiante Du Quebec, Ltee, Intervenor.

W.R. GRACE & CO.-CONN., Petitioner, v. The Honorable James McGirr KELLY, Nominal Respondent,

Barnwell School District No. 45, School District of

Lancaster, Manheim Township School District,

Lampeter-Strasburg School District, Board of Education of

the Memphis City Schools, and a Conditionally Certified

Class, Respondents.

ASTEN GROUP, INC., Dana Corporation, Pfizer, Inc.,

Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, and W.R. Grace &

Co.-Conn., Petitioners, v. The Honorable James McGirr KELLY, Nominal Respondent,

Barnwell School District No. 45, School District of

Lancaster, Manheim Township School District,

Lampeter-Strasburg School District, Board of Education of

the Memphis City Schools, and a Conditionally Certified

Class, Respondents.

GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. The Honorable James McGirr KELLY, Nominal Respondent,

School District of Lancaster, Manheim Township School

District, Lampeter-Strasburg School District, and

a Conditionally Certified Class, Respondents.

KAISER CEMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. The Honorable James McGirr KELLY, Nominal Respondent,

School District of Lancaster, Manheim Township School

District, Lampeter-Strasburg School District, Respondents.

Nos. 91-1887, 91-1917, 91-1943, 91-1981, 91-2105, 92-1014,

92-1053 and 92-1084.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued June 23, 1992.

Decided Oct. 8, 1992.

As Amended Oct. 23, 1992.

Charles R. Bruton (argued), John A. Singer, Piper & Marbury, Rolin P. Bissell, Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, Philadelphia, Pa., for Pfizer Inc.

Patrick J. Hagan, Kincaid, Gianunzio, Caudle & Hubert, P.C., Oakland, Cal., Daniel J. Ryan, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Philadelphia, Pa., Thomas W. Kirby (argued), Wiley, Rein & Fielding, Washington, D.C., for Kaiser Cement Corp.

Alfred A. Gollatz, Donna Bailey McCarthy, Mary Anne Taufen, Gollatz, Griffin, Ewing & McCarthy, West Chester, Pa., for ACandS, Inc.

Robert P. Corbin, Deborah M. Knight, German, Gallagher & Murtagh, Philadelphia, Pa., for Asten Group, Inc.

David Booth Beers, Wendy S. White, Richard A. Nagareda, Shea & Gardner, Washington, D.C., for Cassiar Min. Corp.

Frederick B. Lacey, Molly S. Boast, Thomas Fenerty, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae, New York City, Edward W. Madeira, Jr., Richard W. Foltz, Jr., Matthew H. Adler, Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, Philadelphia, Pa., for Lac D'Amiante du Quebec, Ltee.

Denis McInerney, Allen S. Joslyn (argued), Cahill Gordon & Reindel, New York City, for W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn.

Walter S. Jenkins, Sweeney, Sheehan & Spencer, Philadelphia, Pa., John D. Briggs, Marguerite S. Boyd, Robert L. Green, Howrey & Simon, Washington, D.C., for Dana Corp.

Andrew J. Trevelise, Reed Smith & McClay, Philadelphia, Pa., R. Cornelius Danaher, Jr., Albert P. Lenge, Danaher, Tedford, Langnese & Neil, Hartford, Conn., for Pittsburgh Corning Corp.

John H. Lewis, Jr., Joseph B.G. Fay, J. Gordon Cooney, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Philadelphia, Pa., for U.S. Gypsum Co.

Alan Klein (argued), David Gutin, Leslie Thoman Bradley, Cohen, Shapiro, Polisher Shiekman and Cohen, Philadelphia, Pa., for Georgia-Pacific Corp.

Herbert B. Newberg, Harvey S. Kronfeld (argued), Sandra L. Duggan (argued), Roger P. Cameron, Kronfeld, Newberg & Duggan, David Berger (argued), Harold Berger, Thomas F. Hughes, David Berger, Attorneys at Law, Arnold Levin (argued), Laurence S. Berman, Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, Philadelphia, Pa., for class plaintiffs.

                               TABLE OF CONTENTS
   I.  INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 769
  II.  PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE OVERALL LITIGATION ....................... 771
 III.  GENERAL STANDARDS REGARDING THE AVAILABILITY OF MANDAMUS ........... 772
  IV.  THE PETITIONS RELATING TO DISQUALIFICATION ......................... 774
       A.                   Mandamus as a Means to Review a Judge's
                              Failure to Disqualify Himself or Herself .... 774
       B.                   The Facts Surrounding the Conference on the
                              Hazards of Asbestos in Place ................ 778
       C.                   Disqualification--Appearance of Partiality .... 781
       D.                   Remedy--Vacatur of Past Rulings? .............. 785
   V.  THE PETITION RELATING TO THE EX PARTE FUNDING APPROVAL PROCESS ..... 788
  VI.  THE PETITIONS TO
         COMPEL
         CONSIDERATION OF
         SUMMARY JUDGMENT
         MOTIONS DISMISSED
         AS UNTIMELY ................................................. 791
       A.                   Procedural History ............................ 791
       B.                   Mandamus as a Remedy for Refusal to Consider a
                              Summary Judgment Motion on the Merits ....... 792
       C.                   Timeliness Requirements for Summary Judgment
                              Motions ..................................... 793
 VII.  THE PETITIONS
         REGARDING THE
         PHASE I TRIAL
         PLAN ........................................................ 795
       A.                   Trying the Conspiracy and Concerted Action
                              Claims First ................................ 795
       B.                   Adjudicating the Case According to the Tort
                              Standards of the Strictest Jurisdiction ..... 796
VIII.  SUMMARY ............................................................ 798
----------

Before: BECKER, HUTCHINSON, and ALITO, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

BECKER, Circuit Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Before us are eight petitions for mandamus brought by various defendants shortly before trial was scheduled to begin in this nationwide products liability class action. The trial, which has been stayed pending resolution of these petitions, will concern over 30,000 school districts' claims that the defendants are liable for expenses incurred in eliminating the alleged danger caused by asbestos-containing products in their school buildings. The class action is founded on diversity jurisdiction and will be adjudicated according to the laws of fifty-four jurisdictions.

Petition No. 91-1887, filed by Pfizer, Inc. and supported by numerous other defendants, challenges the refusal of the district judge, the Honorable James McGirr Kelly, to disqualify himself from the case. ¹ Pfizer's petition first notes that Judge Kelly, pursuant to a previously established procedure, approved an ex parte request by the plaintiffs for $50,000 from a settlement fund to support a scientific conference on a key merits issue--the hazards of asbestos in place. The core allegation of the petition is that Judge Kelly attended, and had many of his expenses paid for, the resulting conference, which was an allegedly one-sided event at which most of the plaintiffs' expected expert witnesses presented views similar to those they intended to express at trial.

According to the petition, Judge Kelly acknowledged the resulting appearance of impropriety, but, instead of disqualifying himself, he barred experts who appeared at the conference from providing any expert testimony at trial. Pfizer submits that this remedy is inadequate, and that the sole remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) for the appearance of partiality is disqualification. Pfizer also claims that Judge Kelly had to disqualify himself under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b) because by attending the conference he obtained personal knowledge of disputed facts.

In its petition, Pfizer asks only that we order Judge Kelly to disqualify himself. Two companion petitions, No. 91-1943 filed by ACandS, Inc. and No. 91-1981 filed by Asten Group, Inc., argue additionally that specific rulings adverse to them, which were issued after defendants first requested Judge Kelly to disqualify himself are tainted by the appearance of partiality and must be vacated. Another petition, No. 91-1917, filed by Kaiser Cement Corp., requests that we order the district court (1) to discontinue its process of approving, ex parte, the class plaintiffs' use of escrowed settlement funds to defray litigation costs and (2) to unseal all the plaintiffs' past applications for use of such funds and the district court's rulings thereon.

Rejecting the contrary contention of the class plaintiffs, we conclude that mandamus is a proper means to force a district judge to disqualify himself or herself under 28 U.S.C. § 455. Furthermore, although we believe that Judge Kelly acted with integrity at all times, we also believe that the circumstances surrounding his attendance at the conference created an appearance of partiality that required disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). A writ of mandamus disqualifying him...