LOUGHRY, Justice:

The petitioners1 seek a writ of prohibition to prevent the Mass Litigation Panel from enforcing its order entered on October 21, 2014, dismissing them on the basis of forum non conveniens from the underlying personal injury litigation, which involves products liability and negligence claims. Following a careful review of the briefs, the arguments of counsel, the record submitted, and the applicable law, we deny the requested writ.

I. Facts and Procedural Background

This litigation commenced on July 11, 2012, when a complaint alleging products liability and negligence claims was filed in the Circuit Court of Wayne County by nineteen unrelated mothers, who brought claims on behalf of their respective minor children. The mothers alleged that their ingestion of the drug sertraline hydrochloride, also known by its brand name Zoloft,2 during their pregnancies caused their children to suffer birth defects. Out of this group of nineteen, there is one plaintiff family from each of the following states: Connecticut, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Tennessee, and West Virginia—and two plaintiff families from each of the following states: Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. The respondents, Pfizer, Inc., Roerig, a division of Pfizer, Inc., and Greenstone, LLC, a subsidiary of Pfizer, Inc., which distributes Zoloft (collectively referred to as "the respondents" or "Pfizer"), were named as defendants in the complaint.

On August 7, 2012, the respondents removed eighteen of these nineteen plaintiff families3 to the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.4 The plaintiff families' motion to remand was granted by the federal court.5 The respondents appealed that ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. On July 12, 2013, the Fourth Circuit refused the appeal on the basis that it did "not have the authority" to review the remand order.6

Thereafter, the respondents filed a motion seeking to refer the litigation to the Mass Litigation Panel ("the Panel").7 By administrative order entered on September 24, 2013, then-Chief Justice Benjamin denied the motion "without prejudice to renew the motion in the event additional state actions [were] filed."8 On the heels of this denial, a virtually identical complaint was filed in the Wayne County Circuit Court on October 28, 2013, by six unrelated plaintiff families against Pfizer. These six new plaintiff families are residents of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, New York, South Carolina, and West Virginia. The circuit court entered an order the same day consolidating the two civil actions.

With two civil actions now pending, the twenty-five plaintiff families filed a motion seeking to refer the litigation to the Panel. While that motion was pending, the respondents filed a second notice of removal in federal court naming all nineteen of the original plaintiff families. Asserting that the New York family omitted from the first removal had been fraudulently joined, the respondents argued there was complete diversity among the remaining eighteen plaintiff families.9 Prior to the entry of the federal court order that would, again, grant the plaintiff families' motion to remand,10 then-Chief Justice Davis transferred the two civil actions to the Panel through an administrative order entered on January 14, 2014.11

Following this referral, the Panel held a status conference on March 4, 2014, in what is now known as In re: Zoloft Litigation ("Zoloft litigation"). During this conference, the Panel advised the parties that under Rule 3(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, the two complaints were actually twenty-five civil actions. Accordingly, the Panel divided the plaintiff families into twenty-five civil actions in an order entered on March 11, 2014. Those families sought a writ of prohibition in this Court to prevent the enforcement of the Panel's order. On May 27, 2014, this Court issued its opinion in State ex rel. J.C. v. Mazzone, 233 W.Va. 457, 759 S.E.2d 200 (2014) ("Mazzone I"), wherein it granted the writ of prohibition.

In Mazzone I, this Court addressed the issue of whether Rule 3(a) allowed the Panel to divide the unrelated plaintiff families into twenty-five separate civil actions, or whether the rule was merely an administrative tool for circuit court clerks to charge unrelated plaintiffs separate filing fees. In addressing this issue, we held, as follows:

Id., at 459, 759 S.E.2d at 202, syl. pt. 3. We further stated in Mazzone I that while the parties were permissibly joined under Rule 20 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure,

233 W.Va. at 474, 759 S.E.2d at 217. The Zoloft litigation was remanded to the Panel.

On June 24, 2014, the Panel entered a Case Management Order12 scheduling various hearings, setting a trial date, and establishing deadlines, including a July 9, 2014, deadline for Rule 12 motions to dismiss. The petitioners did not raise an objection to the Case Management Order, generally, nor to the Rule 12 deadline, specifically.

In conformity with the deadline set forth in the Case Management Order, the respondents filed a motion on July 9, 2014, seeking to dismiss twenty-two non-resident plaintiff families13 on the basis of forum non conveniens under West Virginia Code § 56-1-1a (2012), including the New York plaintiff family who had been the subject of the motion to dismiss in the Wayne County Circuit Court. The respondents argued that Mazzone I clarified the Panel's authority to treat the plaintiff families individually, including for purposes of dispositive motions. Following a hearing on the motion, the Panel unanimously granted, in part, the respondents' motion to dismiss by order entered October 21, 2014.

In its dismissal order, the Panel found that the motion was timely filed as it met the deadline for such motions in the Case Management Order. Upon consideration of the eight factors set forth in the forum non conveniens statute, West Virginia Code § 56-1-1a(a)(1-8),14 as well as the degree of deference to be accorded to the non-resident plaintiffs' choice of forum under this statute, the Panel dismissed, without prejudice, twenty of the twenty-two plaintiff families named in the motion to dismiss, including the New York plaintiff family. With regard to the two plaintiff families from Texas and Michigan, the Panel stated in its order that the respondents' counsel conceded that the claims asserted by the Texas and Michigan families would be precluded under Michigan and Texas law. Accordingly, the Panel denied the motion to dismiss as to these two families.15 Therefore, of the original twenty-five plaintiff families, five remain: two from West Virginia; one from Ohio with ties to West Virginia; one from Texas; and one from Michigan. The petitioners seek a writ of prohibition in this Court to prevent enforcement of the Panel's dismissal order.

II. Standard for Issuance of a Writ of Prohibition

In the matter before us, the petitioners seek to prohibit the enforcement of an order dismissing them from the Zoloft litigation on the basis of forum non conveniens. They challenge the timeliness of the respondents' motion to dismiss. Because that motion was filed within the time frame set by the Panel in its Case Management Order, the petitioners' challenge is essentially directed toward that order. West Virginia Trial Court Rule 26.08(d)16 provides the Panel's lead presiding judge with the "authority" to enter such orders. "Prohibition will lie to prohibit a judge from exceeding his legitimate powers." Syl. Pt. 2, State ex rel. Winter v. MacQueen, 161 W.Va. 30, 239 S.E.2d 660 (1977).17 In this regard, we rely upon those factors set forth in syllabus point four of State ex rel. Hoover v. Berger, 199 W.Va. 12, 483 S.E.2d 12 (1996):

The petitioners also challenge the substance of the Panel's forum non conveniens ruling. In this regard, we have held that "[a] circuit court's decision to invoke the doctrine of forum non conveniens will not be reversed unless it is found that the circuit court abused its discretion." Syl. Pt. 3, Cannelton Indus., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am., 194 W.Va. 186, 460 S.E.2d 1 (1994).18 Carving out an exception to the general proposition that prohibition does not lie to review discretionary rulings,19 we have explained that

State ex rel. Mylan, Inc. v. Zakaib, 227 W.Va. 641, 645, 713 S.E.2d 356, 360 (2011). With these standards in mind, we proceed to determine whether a writ of prohibition should be granted.

III. Discussion

A. Timeliness of Motion to Dismiss

The petitioners challenge the timeliness of the respondents' motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. Under West Virginia Code § 56-1-1a, a forum non conveniens motion is timely if it is filed "either concurrently or prior to the filing of . . . a motion pursuant to Rule twelve of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure . . . ." The Panel found that the respondents' motion was timely filed because it met the deadline for Rule 12 motions set forth in its Case Management Order. See Franklin D. Cleckley, Robin Jean Davis, & Louis J. Palmer, Jr., Litigation Handbook on West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, § 12(b)(3)[4], at p. 373-75 (4th ed.2012) (addressing forum non conveniens in context of motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(3)).20

In Mazzone I, this Court expressed its "support [of] the Panel's need to have some discretion in processing the numerous issues that necessarily flow from mass litigation cases." 233 W.Va. at 474, 759 S.E.2d at 217. Recognizing the Panel's "authority to implement procedural mechanisms to address the numerous individual and collective unique issues that are inherent in mass litigation[,]" we further stated that "[o]ur Rules of Civil Procedure provide a host of mechanisms for the Panel to use in efficiently processing mass litigation cases." Id. In fact, we informed the Panel that "to the extent that some plaintiffs may be subject to dispositive motions[,]" it was "free to devise a scheme that permits the defendants to raise those issues and have them addressed separately[,]" which the Panel did in its Case Management Order. Id. Indeed, long before Mazzone I, this Court recognized that the

State ex rel. Mobil Corp. v. Gaughan, 211 W.Va. 106, 111, 563 S.E.2d 419, 424 (2002) (footnote added).

In the case at bar, the Panel clearly evaluated the status of the Zoloft litigation during the scheduling/status conference that was held soon after the remand in Mazzone I. The information garnered during that conference led to the Panel's entry of the Case Management Order six days later, which included a deadline for Rule 12 motions that resultantly extended the deadline for motions for forum non conveniens.22 W.Va.R.Civ.P. 12. Indeed, the Panel has great discretion under our mass litigation rules23 to implement case management plans and orders-even where they may conflict with another rule or statute.24 Accordingly, we find that the Panel had the authority to enter a case management order that established a deadline for Rule 12 motions. As such, the respondents' motion, filed in conformance with the Case Management Order, was timely.

Moreover, even if we were to assume, arguendo, that it was error, there is still no basis to issue the requested writ. In Bowman v. Barnes, 168 W.Va. 111, 282 S.E.2d 613 (1981), the trial court effectively extended the time period for a motion for a new trial filed pursuant to Rule 59 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. The defendants challenged that ruling on the basis that another West Virginia Rule of Civil Procedure-Rule 6-specifically precludes a trial court from extending the time for taking action under Rule 59. In addressing this issue, this Court held:

Bowman, 168 W.Va. 111, 282 S.E.2d 613, syl. pt. 1;25 see also Roberts v. Consolidation Coal Co., 208 W.Va. 218, 227, 539 S.E.2d 478, 487 (2000) (citing Bowman with approval). During oral argument, the petitioners conceded that they did not object to the inclusion of a Rule 12 deadline in the Case Management Order.26 See W.Va.R.Civ.P. 12. In the absence of any objection, the respondents relied upon the Rule 12 deadline in the Case Management Order and filed their motion to dismiss pursuant to the order. Accordingly, even if the Panel erred in setting a Rule 12 deadline in its Case Management Order, under Bowman, the respondents' motion to dismiss would still be timely filed. 168 W.Va. 111, 282 S.E.2d 613, syl. pt. 1.

B. Dismissal for forum non conveniens

The petitioners assert that the Panel erred in dismissing twenty of the non-resident plaintiff families on the basis of forum non conveniens. They argue that the Panel's ruling disregards the "letter and spirit" of Mazzone I, including directions that the Panel not substantively divide the petitioners. The petitioners further argue that the Panel erred in its consideration of the statutory factors governing forum non conveniens under West Virginia Code § 56-1-1a by failing to give any deference to their choice of forum and by crediting respondents' unsupported factual allegations in its evaluation of certain of these factors, all to the petitioners' prejudice.

Conversely, the respondents assert that following the general remand in Mazzone I, the Panel appropriately exercised its discretion in managing the pretrial aspects of the litigation, including its resolution of the respondents' motions as to certain plaintiff families' claims based on the facts particular to those families and within the framework set by this Court and under West Virginia law. The respondents also argue that the Panel correctly evaluated each of the eight statutorily mandated factors in making its forum non conveniens ruling.

Our focus in Mazzone I was the Panel's interpretation and application of Rule 3(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure for the purpose of converting the two civil actions referred to the Panel into twenty-five separate civil actions. Our discussion of permissive joinder in Mazzone I was directly related to our analysis of the intent and purpose of Rule 3(a), an administrative fee-collecting rule. We also recognized that "to the extent that some plaintiffs may be subject to dispositive motions[,]"27 the Panel was "free to devise a scheme that permits the defendants to raise those issues and have them addressed separately." Mazzone I, 233 W.Va. at 474, 759 S.E.2d at 217 (emphasis added). Clearly, a motion to dismiss is a dispositive motion.28 And, while we cautioned the Panel against a division of the parties as it had done under its misinterpretation of Rule 3(a), "[f]orum non conveniens is not a substantive right of the parties, but a procedural rule of the forum." State ex rel. North River Ins. Co. v. Chafin, 233 W.Va. 289, 294, 758 S.E.2d 109, 114 (2014) (citing Am. Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443, 454 n. 4, 114 S.Ct. 981, 127 L.Ed.2d 285 (1994)) (emphasis added).

In the context of our Rule 3(a) analysis, we also found that "[t]he claims alleged in the complaints are logically related and arise from the same transactions or occurrences, i.e., the production, distribution, and promotion of Zoloft[,]" thereby satisfying permissive joinder under Rule 20(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure.29 Mazzone I, 233 W.Va. at 464, 759 S.E.2d at 207. Permissive joinder of parties under Rule 20 "is to be liberally construed." Anderson v. McDonald, 170 W.Va. 56, 60, 289 S.E.2d 729, 734 (1982). Thus, we concluded in Mazzone I that if we had "sought to achieve the Panel's interpretation of Rule 3(a), we necessarily would have had to abolish Rule 20(a)." 233 W.Va. at 469, 759 S.E.2d at 212.

Similarly, we believe that the petitioners' interpretation of Mazzone I as precluding the Panel's forum non conveniens ruling would essentially render West Virginia Code § 56-1-1a a nullity in pharmaceutically-related litigation. In other words, any drug will necessarily be "produc[ed], distribut[ed], and promot[ed]" by the drug's manufacturer. 233 W.Va. at 464, 759 S.E.2d at 207. Persons alleging similar complaints arising from the ingestion of a drug will undoubtedly have common questions of fact concerning "the design of [the drug], the [manufacturer's] knowledge of the drug's safety, and [its] representations about its safety." Id. at 465, 759 S.E.2d at 208. Consequently, the ability to meet the liberal standard for Rule 20(a) does not correspondingly guarantee the existence of a convenient forum, as is apparent under the facts and circumstances of the Zoloft litigation.30

We recognize that permissive joinder under Rule 20(a) is designed to expedite litigation and relieve the burden on the courts and the litigants by allowing a single suit to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties. This purpose is necessarily attenuated when considered in the context of multiple parties from multiple states who have no connection to West Virginia and whose causes of action did not arise in West Virginia. While there can be factors that favor joinder, we cannot ignore the countervailing concerns associated with litigating claims in a convenient forum.

The Panel acquired sufficient information from the parties to recognize the difficulties and complexities that would most assuredly arise through litigating the claims of twenty-two non-resident plaintiff families from sixteen different states whose causes of action arose in those other states. As we have previously held,

Syl. Pt. 3, in part, Norfolk and Western Ry. Co. v. Tsapis, 184 W.Va. 231, 400 S.E.2d 239 (1990).31 Accordingly, after considering all of the above in conjunction with the broad discretion given to the Panel "to continually reassess and evaluate what is required to advance the needs and rights of the parties within the constraints of the judicial system[,]"32 we conclude that under the unique circumstances of this particular litigation, the Panel properly entertained the respondents' motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens.33

Finally, we turn to the substance of the Panel's forum non conveniens ruling. West Virginia Code § 56-1-1a provides, in relevant part, as follows:

Id. (emphasis added).

In undertaking a forum non conveniens analysis, we have held that circuit courts "must consider the eight factors enumerated in West Virginia Code § 56-1-1a . . . as a means of determining whether, in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties, a claim or action should be . . . dismissed on the basis of forum non conveniens." Syl. Pt. 5, in part, Mylan, 227 W.Va. at 642-43, 713 S.E.2d at 357-58. We further held in Mylan that "[i]n all decisions on motions made pursuant to West Virginia Code § 56-1-1a . . . courts must state findings of fact and conclusions of law as to each of the eight factors listed for consideration under subsection (a) of that statute." Id., 227 W.Va. at 643, 713 S.E.2d at 358, syl. pt. 6, in part. We have also recognized that "[t]he weight assigned to each factor varies because each case turns on its own unique facts." North River, 233 W.Va. at 295, 758 S.E.2d at 115. We find that the Panel has entered a thorough order addressing these statutory factors as required by Mylan.

Through their challenge to the substance of the Panel's forum non conveniens ruling, the petitioners make several unavailing arguments. While they generally maintain that the Panel gave no deference to their choice of forum and misapplied these eight statutory factors, they focus on the second statutory factor (whether the maintenance of their claims in West Virginia would work a substantial injustice on the respondents), the sixth factor (balancing the public interest of the state and the private interests of the parties), and the seventh factor (unreasonable duplication and proliferation of litigation). We will, likewise, focus our discussion on these particular statutory factors. Before doing so, however, we will first address the petitioners' choice of forum.

As non-residents whose causes of action did not arise in West Virginia, the petitioners concede that the deference accorded their choice of forum may be diminished. They argue, however, that the Panel gave no deference to their choice of forum and did not consider the effect of the West Virginia plaintiffs' choice of forum, which is entitled to great deference.34 In disagreement, the respondents assert that the Panel correctly observed that the deference afforded to a plaintiff's choice of forum "may be diminished when the plaintiff is a nonresident and the cause of action did not arise in this State." W.Va.Code § 56-1-1a(a). The Panel found it indisputable that all of the petitioners reside-and their causes of action arose-in states other than West Virginia. Consequently, the Panel concluded that their "choice of forum is entitled to less deference."35 We find no error in the Panel's conclusions in this regard.

Turning to the second statutory factor, the petitioners assert that the Panel relied upon the respondents' unsupported factual allegations in reaching its conclusion that the petitioners have no connection to West Virginia and that trying their claims in West Virginia would result in "substantial injustice." See W.Va.Code § 56-1-1a(a)(2). They posit that their dismissal at this point in the litigation will result in extreme prejudice to them, and that the connection between their claims and West Virginia is the fact that they have been litigating their claims in West Virginia; that more plaintiffs are from West Virginia than from any other state;36 and that the respondents conduct a substantial amount of business in West Virginia through marketing and selling Zoloft. As for the Panel's conclusion that interstate discovery would be "complicated and expensive," the petitioners contend this conclusion is inaccurate and is based on the respondents' "flimsy allegations."37

Conversely, the respondents assert that the Panel based its factual findings on the record and did not err in acknowledging that the process of obtaining interstate discovery through letters rogatory is more complicated and expensive than obtaining intrastate discovery through ordinary subpoenas. The respondents observe that because the subject plaintiff families are from sixteen states, their respective treating physicians, prescribing physicians, dispensing pharmacists, and other third-party witnesses are located in those, and potentially other, states. Citing the Panel's lack of subpoena power to compel the attendance of these witnesses at depositions or trial, or to compel the production of documents in the possession of these non-party witnesses, the respondents assert that the parties will bear the burden and expense of filing separate individual lawsuits in the home state of each non-party witness to secure subpoena power from the courts in those states. The respondents further note that even where witnesses are willing, the costs associated with obtaining their attendance at deposition and trial "would not be insubstantial and would involve significant travel expense."

Echoing the respondents' arguments concerning the second statutory factor, the Panel found that "West Virginia's lack of connection to this litigation coupled with the difficulty of compelling or voluntarily securing witnesses for deposition and trial would work a substantial injustice to both Plaintiffs and Defendants[.]" As the Panel correctly observed, all of the evidence, witnesses, and locations relevant to the petitioners' claims will be located in their respective home states. Confirming the respondents' arguments, the Panel cited its lack of subpoena power to compel the attendance of non-party witnesses at deposition or trial or to compel the production of documents in the possession of non-parties, a fact the petitioners do not dispute.38 The Panel further found that the considerable distance between West Virginia and the petitioners' home states would render interstate discovery and procuring the voluntary attendance of non-party witnesses for depositions and trial more complicated and expensive. These factors-coupled with West Virginia's lack of connection to the non-resident plaintiffs' claims-were found by the Panel to "work a substantial injustice to both Plaintiffs and Defendants."

The sixth statutory factor balances the public interest of the state against the private interest of the parties, including a "consideration of the extent to which an injury or death resulted from acts or omissions that occurred in this State." W.Va.Code § 56-1-1a(a)(6). The petitioners argue that litigating the claims of the remaining plaintiff families in West Virginia, including two West Virginia families, favors keeping all plaintiff families joined as it would impose no additional burden on West Virginia judges or juries. In complete disagreement, the respondents assert that the petitioners' argument "rests on the unsupportable premise that trying the claims of twenty-five Plaintiff Families will take no more time and no more attention from citizens called for jury duty or West Virginia judges, than trying the claims of five Plaintiff Families."

As indicated above, the factors relevant to private interests of the parties include

W.Va.Code § 56-1-1a(a)(6). In weighing these particular considerations, the Panel made findings similar to those it made concerning the second factor, after which it concluded that each of the "private interests weighs in favor of dismissal" and "favors litigation in the subject Plaintiff Families' home states where a significant amount of such proof is located."

The sixth statutory factor also requires the consideration of the public interest of this state, including "the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; the interest in having localized controversies decided within the State; the avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflict of laws, or in the application of foreign law; and the unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty[.]" W.Va.Code § 56-1-1a(a)(6). The Panel cited the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion associated with trying the claims of twenty-two non-resident plaintiff families in West Virginia against non-resident defendants. Another public interest concern cited by the Panel was the unreasonableness of imposing jury duty on West Virginia citizens who would be required to devote significant time to complicated issues involving each plaintiff mother's alleged ingestion of Zoloft and the alleged resultant birth defects to the non-resident minor plaintiffs. Recognizing that West Virginia law cannot govern the petitioners' claims because their alleged injuries arose in other states, the Panel would be required to the apply the laws of sixteen different states. Thus, the Panel acknowledged the conspicuous advantages to conducting trials in the petitioners' home states where the courts are familiar with their respective state's laws. After balancing the petitioners' private interests against the state's public interests, the Panel concluded that the public interests of the state predominate in favor of the petitioners bringing their claims in their home states.39

Turning to the duplication or proliferation of litigation-the seventh statutory factor40—the petitioners assert that the Panel failed to give adequate weight to the fact that they have been litigating their properly joined claims for two years, describing discovery as being "far along."41 The petitioners contend that forcing them to re-file in their home states will mean that they will start at "ground zero," resulting in the duplication and proliferation of litigation. Disagreeing with the petitioners' "ground zero" prediction, the respondents assert that any plaintiff family who re-files in their home state will have access to the significant discovery that Pfizer has already produced. Further, the respondents represent that the initial discovery directed toward Pfizer, which has been completed thus far in similar Zoloft claims pending in the federal multi-district litigation in Pennsylvania, as well as in eight other state courts, is readily transferable to any re-filed proceeding in the respective home states of the petitioners.

Upon its consideration of the seventh statutory factor, the Panel agreed with the respondents, describing the discovery conducted thus far as being extensive with regard to the respondents but only in its initial stages with regard to the plaintiff families. The Panel further agreed that all discovery conducted thus far is "readily transferable to any re-filed proceeding in a subject Plaintiff Family's home state." Observing that none of the petitioners' claims have been adjudicated on the merits, the Panel found there would be no "unnecessary re-litigation of issues." Based on the respondents' representation that the parties and courts involved in similar Zoloft litigation42 have been coordinating their efforts in terms of discovery and other pretrial matters, the Panel concluded that the dismissal of the petitioners "will not significantly expand the scope or geographical breadth of the Zoloft litigation."43

Based upon our consideration of all of the above, we find no error in the Panel's decision to dismiss the twenty non-resident plaintiff families on the basis of forum non conveniens under the particular facts, circumstances, and procedural history of this litigation. West Virginia has no real interest in trying non-resident plaintiffs' claims against non-resident defendants involving causes of action that accrued in states other than West Virginia. Because the petitioners' claims arose in other states, their cases can "be tried substantially more inexpensively and expeditiously" in those other states where the sources of proof will be more easily accessible. Syl. Pt. 3, in part, Tsapis, 184 W.Va. 231, 400 S.E.2d 239. Moreover, the applicable and governing law in those other states is more readily applied by the courts of those states. Importantly, the judges and jurors in the petitioners' home states would not be impositioned by having to determine disputes involving individuals who allegedly sustained injuries while residing in those states. Under the Hoover factors,44 we find no ground to warrant the issuance of a writ of prohibition.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, there is no basis to prevent the Panel from enforcing its dismissal order entered on October 21, 2014. Accordingly, the writ of prohibition is denied.

Writ denied.

Justice KETCHUM, deeming himself disqualified, did not participate in the decision in this case.

Senior Status Justice McHUGH sitting by special assignment.

Chief Justice WORKMAN and Justice DAVIS dissent and reserve the right to file dissenting opinions.

DAVIS, J., dissenting; joined by WORKMAN, C.J.:

In this case, the majority opinion refuses to grant the writ of prohibition sought by the plaintiff families to prevent enforcement of the Mass Litigation Panel's order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the claims of twenty plaintiff families on the ground of forum non conveniens. I dissent because I believe a motion to dismiss based upon forum non conveniens filed two years after litigation was begun simply is not timely as required by W. Va.Code § 56-1-1a(a) (2006) (Repl. Vol. 2012)

The litigation of the instant matter has taken a long and tortured route that has included two attempts by the defendants to remove the case to federal court and a prior petition to this Court. There also was an earlier motion to dismiss a New York plaintiff family based upon forum non conveniens filed in 2012 in the circuit court of Wayne County. That motion was denied. A motion to dismiss based upon forum non conviens should typically be filed early in the course of litigation. Indeed, the Legislature has declared that such a motion

W. Va.Code § 56-1-1a(b). There has been no showing of good cause to extend the period for filing the motion in the instant matter. The factors relied upon by the defendants to support their motion were obvious from the time the complaints were filed. Under these circumstances, the defendants motion should have been refused as untimely.1 For this reason, I respectfully dissent. I am authorized to state that Chief Justice Workman joins me in this dissent.