Summary
The Supreme Court of Texas conditionally granted Mobile Mini, Inc.’s petition for writ of mandamus concerning designation of Nolana Self Storage, LLC, as a responsible third party in a construction-worker personal-injury suit. The court held that Mobile Mini timely disclosed Nolana under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, even though the disclosure occurred after the limitations period for claims against Nolana had expired. The court directed the trial court to vacate its order denying the motion to designate, concluding that Mobile Mini lacked an adequate appellate remedy.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a defendant's disclosure of a potentially responsible third party is timely under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 33.004(d) when the disclosure is served within the time required by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure but after the limitations period applicable to the third party's claims has expired.
- Whether Mobile Mini was entitled to designate Nolana as a responsible third party after Nolana's claims had been dismissed on limitations grounds and Nolana was no longer a party.
- Whether the trial court's denial of Mobile Mini's timely motion to designate warranted mandamus relief.
Holdings
- A defendant's disclosure of a potentially responsible third party is timely under section 33.004(d) when it is served within the deadline imposed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, even if that deadline falls after the limitations period applicable to the responsible third party has expired.
- A person may be designated as a responsible third party even though the person is no longer a party because the plaintiff's claims against that person were dismissed on limitations grounds.
- Mandamus relief is available to correct the erroneous denial of a timely filed motion to designate a responsible third party because an appeal ordinarily is not an adequate remedy.
Key quotations
“Because a timely disclosure in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure is all that is required of the defendant under the statute, requiring an earlier disclosure in suits filed mere days before the expiration of the statute of limitations is repugnant to the statutory language, unfairly burdens defendants, and skews the legislatively determined balance of interests.” (at 8)
“A writ of mandamus will not issue unless an adequate appellate remedy is lacking, but as we recently held in In re Coppola, mandamus relief is available to rectify the erroneous denial of a party’s timely filed motion to designate a responsible third party.” (at 10)
Factual background
Luis Covarrubias injured his pinky finger when a wind gust caused the door of a construction trailer to close on his hand. Mobile Mini owned the trailer and leased it to Nolana Self Storage, whose contractor, Anar Construction Specialists, had exclusive control of the trailer at the time. Covarrubias filed suit nineteen days before limitations expired, and Mobile Mini later timely disclosed Nolana as a potentially responsible third party in discovery and moved to designate Nolana after Covarrubias added Nolana as a defendant.
Procedural history
Covarrubias sued Anar Construction Specialists, LLC, and Mobile Mini after his finger was injured by a construction-trailer door, later adding Nolana as a defendant. Mobile Mini timely disclosed Nolana as a potentially responsible third party in discovery and filed a motion to designate Nolana. After the trial court granted summary judgment for Nolana on Covarrubias's tort claims and Mobile Mini's derivative contribution claim, the trial court denied Mobile Mini's motion to designate. The court of appeals denied mandamus relief, and the Supreme Court of Texas conditionally granted mandamus and directed the trial court to vacate its order.
Remand instructions
The trial court must vacate its order denying Mobile Mini's motion to designate Nolana as a responsible third party. The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to do so.