In re Coppola
535 S.W.3d 506
| Tex. | 2017Background
- Frank and Bridget Coppola sold unimproved land to Nancy Adams (and her LLC); Adams planned a veterinary clinic and confirmed zoning with a city official before closing.
- At closing, the Coppolas provided a survey showing a 15-foot right-of-way; Adams later discovered local ordinance required a 25-foot right-of-way for commercial improvements, allegedly preventing her intended use.
- Adams had retained two attorneys for transactional advice before closing.
- 76 days before the third trial setting, the Coppolas moved to designate Adams’s attorneys as responsible third parties under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.004; the trial court denied the motion without permitting repleading.
- The court of appeals denied mandamus; the Texas Supreme Court granted relief, holding the motion was timely and that the trial court abused its discretion by denying it without allowing an opportunity to cure any pleading defect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Adams) | Defendant's Argument (Coppolas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of § 33.004 designation | Motion was untimely; original deadline tied to initial trial setting (Bomac) | Motion filed more than 60 days before the current trial date, so timely under § 33.004(a) | Motion was timely; “trial date” means the trial date at time of filing, not only the initial setting |
| Whether attorneys can be designated as responsible third parties | Attorneys should be categorically excluded; policy/discipline concerns | Statute’s plain text allows any person alleged to have caused harm; attorneys not exempt | Attorneys may be designated; statute controls and forbids judicially creating a categorical exemption |
| Denial without opportunity to replead | Denial appropriate if pleading insufficient | Even if pleading deficient, court must permit repleading under § 33.004(g) | Trial court abused discretion by denying without allowing repleading; must grant leave unless pleading defect persists after chance to cure |
| Adequacy of appellate remedy / mandamus standard | Denial can be reviewed on appeal | Erroneous denial of timely designation usually lacks adequate appellate remedy; mandamus appropriate | Ordinary rule: relator need only show abuse of discretion to obtain mandamus for erroneous denial of timely § 33.004 motion |
| Alternative request to dismiss for lack of ripeness | Claims not ripe because variance not sought; dismissal warranted | No predicate request to the trial court on ripeness in the record | Alternative dismissal denied—mandamus requires a prior request and refusal in trial court; record lacks that predicate |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (standards for mandamus and adequacy of appellate remedy)
- El Paso Healthcare Sys., Ltd. v. Murphy, 518 S.W.3d 412 (Tex. 2017) (text-based statutory construction)
- In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458 (Tex. 2008) (mandamus where proceeding to trial would defeat substantive right)
- Lippincott v. Whisenhunt, 462 S.W.3d 507 (Tex. 2015) (apply statute as written; cannot judicially amend)
- American Title Co. v. Bomac Mortgage Holdings, LP, 196 S.W.3d 903 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006) (discussed; distinguished on facts regarding continuance and scheduling order)
- In re CVR Energy, Inc., 500 S.W.3d 67 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016) (discussing prejudice from trying case without a timely third-party designation)
- In re J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., 492 S.W.3d 287 (Tex. 2016) (mandamus principles applied to related interlocutory contexts)