550 S.W.3d 625
Tex.2018Background
- On March 5, 2014, Dawson was injured when a television fell at Mary's Outpost #1; she sued the owner/operator, Two for Freedom, LLC, within the limitations period.
- Two for Freedom served initial Rule 194 disclosures and discovery responses; its Rule 194.2(l) response before limitations expired said only "Defendant will supplement."
- In an interrogatory answered before limitations expired, Two for Freedom identified Michael Graciano as the installer of the television but did not state his address or that he was an independent contractor.
- Two for Freedom did not supplement its disclosures before the statute of limitations expired; it moved to designate Graciano as a responsible third party more than two weeks after limitations ran and then supplemented disclosures.
- The trial court granted leave to designate Graciano after limitations had expired; Dawson sought mandamus, arguing the late designation was barred by Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.004(d).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Two for Freedom timely disclosed that Graciano "may be designated as a responsible third party" under Rule 194.2(l) and § 33.004(d) | Two for Freedom's pre‑limitations responses were incomplete (only gave installer name once and said "will supplement"); thus it failed to timely disclose and cannot designate after limitations | The initial disclosures and the interrogatory naming Graciano were sufficient to put Dawson on notice that he might be designated, so post‑limitations designation is allowed | Held for Dawson: pre‑limitations disclosures were inadequate; Rule 194.2(l) was not satisfied |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting leave to designate Graciano after limitations | Trial court's order allowed a belated, prejudicial designation that the statute forbids when timely disclosure obligations were not met | Two for Freedom argued the disclosures satisfied its obligations so trial court had discretion to grant leave | Held abuse of discretion: trial court erroneously granted leave |
| Whether Dawson has an adequate remedy by appeal or is entitled to mandamus relief | Mandamus is appropriate because proceeding to trial with an "empty chair" would defeat Dawson's statutory protection and appellate review would be inadequate | Two for Freedom implied normal appellate review should suffice | Held mandamus is available; the court conditionally granted the writ to protect Dawson's right under § 33.004(d) |
| Whether defendant's post‑limitations supplementation cured the failure to disclose before limitations | Post‑limitations supplementation cannot retroactively satisfy the duty to timely disclose required by the rules and statute | Two for Freedom argued supplementation and earlier references were sufficient notice | Held no: supplementation after limitations did not cure the earlier failure |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus standard: abuse of discretion and no adequate appellate remedy)
- In re CVR Energy, Inc., 500 S.W.3d 67 (Tex. 2016) (protecting plaintiffs from belated designation that points to time‑barred third parties)
- Molinet v. Kimbrell, 356 S.W.3d 407 (Tex. 2011) (plaintiff may not join designated responsible third party outside limitations)
- In re Coppola, 535 S.W.3d 506 (Tex. 2017) (mandamus ordinarily available when trial court erroneously denies timely section 33.004(a) designation)
- Withers v. Schneider Nat'l Carriers, Inc., 13 F. Supp. 3d 686 (E.D. Tex. 2014) (describing prejudice when plaintiff cannot pursue time‑barred third party but defendant can blame them)