Six or more parties may be joined initially as plaintiffs in a single action if their claims involve common issues of fact and arise out of the same transaction or occurrence or the same series of transactions or occurrences. On motion of a defendant, the actions so joined shall be severed unless the court finds that the claims of the plaintiffs were ones which, if they had been filed separately, would have met the standards of § 8.01-267.1 and would have been consolidated under § 8.01-267.3. If the court orders severance, the claims may proceed separately upon payment of any appropriate filing fees due in the separate circuit courts within sixty days of entry of the order. The date of the original filing shall be the date of filing for each of the severed actions for purposes of applying the statutes of limitations.
1995, c. 555.
Notes of Decisions
Penn-Am. Ins. Co. v. White Pines, Inc., 387 F. Supp. 3d 646 (E.D. Va. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Penn-America could be joined to that case under Virginia Code § 8.01-267.5, or a new action may be brought; the same form of declaratory judgment may be sought under Virginia Code § 8.”
Livingston v. Fairfax Cnty., 78 Va. Cir. 283 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2009).
· cites it 34× “Smith In this action, the Court determines whether the claims of “six or more parties” may be severed by the Court sua sponte for failure to comply with the initial filing provisions of Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-267.5 , requiring that the “claims involve common issues of fact and…”
Doe v. Bruton Par. Church, 42 Va. Cir. 467 (Williamsburg and James Cir. Ct. 1997).
“§ 8.01-267.5. In summary, the court must either make the following findings and invoke the Act or grant Defendants’ motions to sever.”
Branch v. Pharma, L.P., 64 Va. Cir. 159 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 2004).
· cites it 4× “Markow This case is before the court on Motions to Sever Misjoined Parties predicated upon Virginia Code § 8.01-267.5. Seven Plaintiffs, each alleged users of OxyContin, have brought suit against the manufacturer and promoter and the doctors who prescribed it to the individual…”
McClure v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 54 Va. Cir. 322 (Roanoke County Cir. Ct. 2000).
“Counsel for Plaintiff is directed to pay the appropriate filing fees for the four cases being transferred to the separate circuit courts, pursuant to § 8.01-267.5.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.