in Re Angela Cornejo and Carlos R. Portillo
01-16-00299-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 6, 2016Background
- Angela Cornejo and Carlos Portillo filed a district-court health-care liability suit for damages they incurred from alleged negligent treatment of their minor child; their claims for medical expenses and noneconomic damages are derivative of the child’s injuries.
- Defendants moved to join the child as a party under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 39(a); Cornejo later became guardian of the child’s estate and filed a separate probate-court suit on the child’s behalf.
- The district court granted the defendants’ motion and ordered joinder of the child as an indispensable (involuntary) plaintiff, then abated the district case pending joinder. The defendants later sought enforcement and a deadline for joinder.
- Cornejo and Portillo petitioned for mandamus challenging (1) the joinder order and (2) an order compelling joinder; they argued joinder was unnecessary, involuntary joinder was improper, and the district court’s action interfered with probate jurisdiction.
- The court analyzed Rule 39(a), the derivative nature of parental claims, and the risk of inconsistent obligations (including exhaustion or apportionment of statutory noneconomic-damages caps) and concluded joinder was proper; mandamus was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the child must be joined as an indispensable party under Tex. R. Civ. P. 39(a) | Cornejo/Portillo: parents’ recovery is limited to their individual damages; joinder unnecessary | Defendants: parents’ claims are derivative of the child’s; without joinder defendants risk incomplete relief and inconsistent obligations | Court: parents’ claims are derivative; Rule 39(a) requires joinder; child is indispensable |
| Whether joinder creates a substantial risk of inconsistent obligations | Cornejo/Portillo: nonsuited some noneconomic claims; risk is overstated | Defendants: shared statutory caps and different juries could exhaust or misallocate damages, causing inconsistency | Court: substantial risk exists (shared statutory caps and apportionment issues); joinder warranted |
| Whether involuntary joinder as an involuntary plaintiff is permissible here | Cornejo/Portillo: Rule 39’s “proper case” exception shouldn’t apply; forced plaintiff joinder is disfavored | Defendants: guardian willingly sued in probate; circumstances differ from federal cases disfavoring involuntary joinder | Court: district court acted within broad discretion; involuntary joinder appropriate here |
| Whether district-court joinder improperly interferes with probate-court jurisdiction | Cornejo/Portillo: district court’s joinder is effectively a transfer and circumvents probate protections | Defendants: defendants moved to join before the probate suit was filed; probate court declined transfer and later abated sua sponte | Court: no improper interference; joinder did not infringe probate court’s dominant jurisdiction in these circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 235 S.W.3d 619 (Tex. 2007) (mandamus standard: abuse of discretion and inadequate appellate remedy)
- In re Entergy Corp., 142 S.W.3d 316 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus standard and limits)
- In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379 (Tex. 2005) (abuse-of-discretion framework)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (standards for reviewing trial-court rulings)
- Royal Petroleum Corp. v. Dennis, 332 S.W.2d 313 (Tex. 1960) (trial courts’ broad discretion on joinder)
- Fort Worth Osteopathic Hosp., Inc. v. Reese, 148 S.W.3d 94 (Tex. 2004) (parental claims for mental anguish are derivative of child’s cause of action)
- Sax v. Votteler, 648 S.W.2d 661 (Tex. 1983) (distinguishing child’s cause of action from parent’s right to recover)
- Eikel v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 473 F.2d 959 (5th Cir. 1973) (federal discussion of the “proper case” limitation on involuntary joinder)