in Re Kerrville Bus Company, Inc. and Elsa Valladares

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 12, 2015
• Docket: 09-15-00031-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _________________ NO. 09-15-00031-CV _________________

IN RE KERRVILLE BUS COMPANY, INC. AND ELSA VALLADARES

________________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding ________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this mandamus proceeding, Kerrville Bus Company, Inc. and Elsa

Valladares contend the judge of the 75th District Court of Liberty County abused

his discretion by denying their motion to designate responsible third parties in a

suit for personal injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident. The designation

was filed at least sixty days before trial, as required by statute. See Tex. Civ. Prac.

& Rem. Code Ann. § 33.004(a) (West 2015). The real party in interest, Gary

Wayne Rogers, objected on the ground that Relators failed to designate responsible

third parties before the statute of limitations expired. Relators contend they had no

obligation to disclose responsible third parties before limitations expired because

Rogers propounded his requests for disclosure more than two years after the

accident occurred.

“Whether an appellate remedy is adequate depends on the circumstances

presented, including the complexity of the case and whether the trial court’s error

may be corrected through the appellate process.” In re Sun Dev., L.P., No. 09-12-

00032-CV, 2012 WL 170164, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Jan. 19, 2012, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.). Without expressing any opinion as to the propriety of the

trial court’s ruling, in this case, any harm arising from the trial court’s pre-trial

ruling on Relators’ motion to designate responsible third parties will depend on the

evidence developed during the trial. See In re Unitec Elevator Servs. Co., 178

S.W.3d 53, 65-66 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, orig. proceeding).

Relators have not demonstrated that appeal would not be an adequate remedy. See

id. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on February 12, 2015 Opinion Delivered March 12, 2015

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.