In Re Hurricane Rita

Texas Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

In Re Hurricane Rita

216 S.W.3d 70

CourtTexas Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

DecidedMarch 6, 2006

DocketNo. 05-1073.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 216 S.W.3d 70 (In Re Hurricane Rita) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Hurricane Rita, 216 S.W.3d 70 (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ON REVIEW BY THE MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION PANEL Before us is a motion to appoint a pretrial judge for six lawsuits, pending in two counties, which arise from one common incident. For the reasons stated below, we grant the motion without an oral hearing. See rule 13.3(k). A pretrial judge has been appointed by separate order.

On September 22, 2005, as Hurricane Rita approached the southeast Texas gulf coast, defendant Brighton Gardens evacuated some of the residents from its assisted living and health care facility in Houston, placing them on a bus that had been chartered through defendant Global Charter Services. Early the next day, the bus caught fire near Dallas, causing the death of twenty-three persons and injuring several others. Six lawsuits arising from this incident have been filed in state court — four in Hidalgo County and two in Harris County. Two other cases have been filed in federal court. The defendants have asked this panel to consolidate the eight state cases for pretrial proceedings before one judge. Several of the plaintiffs have objected to that request; one firm representing plaintiffs does not object, provided that a pretrial judge from Houston is chosen.

Administrative rule 13 empowers the MDL Panel to transfer related cases (i.e. those involving one or more common questions of fact) from trial courts in different counties to a single pretrial court for coordinated pretrial handling. The pretrial court's authority over transferred cases is extensive and complete. See Rule 13.6. From time to time, as the pretrial court concludes that cases are ready for trial, it will remand them to the original trial courts for trial in the county of venue. See Rule 13.7.

The MDL panel may order transfer if it will (1) serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and (2) promote *Page 72 the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. See Rule 13.3. The movant need not show that anyone has already been inconvenienced or that there are existing problems to be addressed. See In re Silica Products LiabilityLitigation, 166 S.W.3d 3 (Tex. M.D.L. Panel 2004). Instead we must simply be convinced that transfer to a pretrial judge would promote Rule 13's goals of convenience and efficiency.

These cases arise from one common event, and no one has seriously denied that the liability issues in each of them will be substantially the same. We recognize that different attorneys will develop and try their cases differently, that not every defendant before us has been sued in every case, that different expert witnesses may be involved, and that the damages will differ from case to case, as they always do. But the lawyers will be examining the same large pool of employees and fact witnesses. At the least, the witnesses will include those who dealt with the bus as it made its way from South Texas to Houston and then toward Dallas, those who witnessed the fire itself, those who responded to the scene to provide rescue and medical care, and those who investigated it. When rule 13 voices its concern for efficiency and for the convenience of parties and witnesses, it has such persons in mind. While none of them have yet been subjected to conflicting demands or repetitive discovery, we conclude that assigning one pretrial judge to handle the cases arising from this one tragic event will further rule 13's laudable goals of efficiency and convenience.

Plaintiff's argue that many of them are not similarly situated. Some plaintiffs, for example, were receiving healthcare at Brighton Gardens, and on some causes of action they may have to comply with the statutory rules for healthcare claims.See Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ch. 74. Other plaintiffs may have been on the job for their employers during the incident and may therefore face workers compensation issues that other plaintiffs do not. There may indeed be differences. But every case is different. No two cases are alike. A rule 13 transfer of cases does not require that the cases be congruent or anything close to it. It requires only that cases be "related" — i.e. that they involve one or more common questions of fact — and that transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.

Because these criteria are overwhelmingly shown in this group of lawsuits arising from the same event, the Motion to Transfer is granted.

ORDER OF MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION PANEL APPOINTMENT OF PRETRIAL JUDGE IN THE FOLLOWING MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION CASE: The Joint Motion for Transfer, filed by Sunrise Senior Living Services, Inc. et al., under the Texas Rules of Judicial Administration, is granted. Pursuant to Administrative rule 13, the causes listed on the First Amended Appendix A of the Joint Motion for Transfer, attached hereto and incorporated herein for all purposes, and tag-along cases if any, are transferred to Judge Rose Guerra Reyna of the 206th District Court of Hidalgo County.

APPENDIX A Re: No. 05-1073; In Re: Hurricane Rita Evacuation BusFire

Mr. Andrew Weber, Clerk

Supreme Court of Texas

Supreme Court Building

*Page 73

201 West 14th, Rm. 104

Austin, Texas 78701

Dear Mr. Weber:

Enclosed for filing in the above-referenced cause are four copies of the First Amended Appendix A to the Joint Motion to Transfer Pursuant to Texas Rule of Judicial Administration 13, which was filed on December 20, 2005. An electronic version of the enclosed First Amended Appendix is also being transmitted to Ms. Claudia Jenks of your office.

Please file-stamp the enclosed extra copy of this document and return it in the self-addressed, postage-paid stamped envelope for our file.

By copy of this letter, all counsel of record are being provided a copy of the enclosed motion.

Thank you for your assistance.

cc: Justice David Peeples CMRRR 7002 2030 0005 7017 3694 Fourth Administrative Judicial Region 100 Dolorosa San Antonio, Texas 78205-3038

Justice Bea Ann Smith CMRRR 7002 2030 0005 7017 3687 Third Court of Appeals 209 W. 14th Street, Room 101 Price Daniels Bldg. Austin, Texas 78701

Justice George Hanks CMRRR 7002 2030 0005 7017 3670 First Court of Appeals 1307 San Jacinto, 10th Floor Houston, Texas 77002

Justice Douglas Lang CMRRR 7002 2030 0005 7017 3663 Fifth Court of Appeals George L. Allen, Sr. Courts Bldg. 600 Commerce, 2nd Floor Dallas, Texas 75202-1658

Justice Errlinda Castillo CMRRR 7002 2030 0005 7017 0112 Thirteenth Court of Appeals Nueces County Courthouse 901 Leopard St., 10th Floor Corpus Christi, Texas 78401

Claudia Jenks, Deputy Clerk Claudia.Jenks @courts.state.tx.us Supreme Court of Texas Supreme Court Building 201 West 14th, Rm. 104 Austin, Texas 78701

cc: Robert Luke Robert Luke Ron Simon Simon Luke, LLP 2929 Allen Parkway, 42^nd Floor Houston, Texas 77019

Dick DeGuerin DeGuerin, Dickson Hennessy *Page 74 1018 Preston, 7th Floor Houston, Texas 77002

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI