In re Coppola

Summary

The Texas Supreme Court conditionally granted mandamus relief after the trial court denied the Coppolas’ timely motion to designate the plaintiffs’ attorneys as responsible third parties under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 33.004. The court held that a motion filed more than sixty days before the operative trial setting was timely and that the trial court could not deny the motion for pleading deficiencies without allowing an opportunity to replead. The court also held that attorneys may be designated as responsible third parties and that mandamus relief is ordinarily available when a timely designation is erroneously denied.

Holdings

1. A motion to designate a responsible third party is timely under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 33.004(a) when filed on or before the sixtieth day before the trial date existing when the motion is filed, even if the motion is filed after an earlier trial setting.
2. When a timely section 33.004(a) designation motion is challenged as inadequately pleaded, the trial court may not deny the motion without first affording the movant an opportunity to replead.
3. Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code chapter 33 does not categorically prohibit designating attorneys as responsible third parties.
4. Ordinarily, a relator need establish only a trial court's abuse of discretion to obtain mandamus relief from denial of a timely section 33.004(a) motion to designate a responsible third party.
5. The Coppolas were not entitled to dismissal for lack of ripeness in this mandamus proceeding because they had not made a predicate request for that relief below and did not show that this was one of the rare occasions warranting relaxation of that requirement.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a motion to designate a responsible third party filed more than sixty days before a new trial setting is timely when filed after the initial trial date.
2. Whether a trial court may deny a timely motion to designate a responsible third party without giving the movant an opportunity to replead alleged pleading deficiencies.
3. Whether Texas's responsible-third-party statute categorically prohibits designation of attorneys as responsible third parties.
4. Whether mandamus relief is ordinarily available when a trial court erroneously denies a timely section 33.004(a) designation motion.
5. Whether the Coppolas could obtain dismissal of Adams's claims for lack of ripeness in the mandamus proceeding despite not raising the issue or requesting that relief below.

Disposition

writ_granted