J. Fuentes Colleyville, L.P. D/B/A Gloria's Restaurant Jose Fuentes Colleyville, Inc. D/B/A Gloria's Restaurant And Carlos Fuentes, Inc. D/B/A Gloria's Restaurant v. A.S., Individually and as Next Friend of K.S., a Minor Child Kristen Hayter And Consumers County Mutual Insurance Company, 501 S.W.3d 239

Background

On Jan. 1, 2014, K.S. was injured in a collision allegedly caused by Hayter driving while intoxicated; A.S. is K.S.'s next friend and also plaintiff.
A.S. settled with Hayter (policy limit $30,000) and with Consumers (UIM limit $100,000) and filed a "friendly suit" in Tarrant County to obtain judicial approval of those settlements and for a minor prove-up.
Appellants (Gloria’s Restaurant entities) later sued in Dallas County under the Dram Shop Act alleging they served Hayter while obviously intoxicated, causing the collision.
Appellants filed a plea in intervention in the Tarrant County settlement-approval suit to contest allegations that Hayter was intoxicated and that his intoxication proximately caused the injuries; they sought no monetary relief in the Tarrant proceeding.
A.S. moved to strike the intervention as lacking a justiciable interest and as unnecessary and complicating; the trial court struck the intervention, conducted the minor-prove-up, and approved the settlements.
Appellants appealed the striking of the intervention and the related striking of their crossclaims; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Appellants had a justiciable interest to intervene in the Tarrant County friendly suit	A.S. framed the suit as only for settlement approval and not to adjudicate liability; intervention unnecessary	Appellants argued their interest existed because the same occurrence and common issues (Hayter’s intoxication and proximate cause) were at stake and they could have been joined under rules 39/40	Held: No justiciable interest; intervention properly struck because the suit’s sole purpose was settlement approval and Appellants’ interests were not affected by that unique proceeding.
Whether the trial court abused discretion by striking the plea in intervention even if a justiciable interest existed	A.S. argued striking was proper because Appellants could fully protect interests in their Dallas County suit and intervention would complicate the Tarrant proceeding	Appellants argued rule 39(a)(1) required joinder because complete relief could not be accorded without them and that striking multiplied issues	Held: Trial court did not abuse discretion — Appellants could protect themselves in the Dallas suit and intervention would unduly complicate a proceeding limited to approving settlements.
Whether striking the crossclaims was reversible error because no motion targeted them	Appellants argued crossclaims were improperly struck absent motion	A.S. argued crossclaims followed from and were dependent on the stricken intervention	Held: No reversible error — the crossclaims were derivative of the stricken intervention and thus of no legal effect.

Key Cases Cited

In re Union Carbide Corp., 273 S.W.3d 152 (Tex. 2008) (intervention burden and scope of trial-court discretion)
Guaranty Federal Savings Bank v. Horseshoe Operating Co., 793 S.W.2d 652 (Tex. 1990) (standards for intervention and when striking is abuse of discretion)
Law Offices of Windle Turley, P.C. v. Ghiasinejad, 109 S.W.3d 68 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003) (trial court’s broad discretion to strike intervention)
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Bliss, 368 S.W.2d 594 (Tex. 1963) (construe petition favorably to pleader; context controls character of suit)
Zeifman v. Michels, 229 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007) (intervention-striking reviewed for abuse of discretion)
McCord v. Watts, 777 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. App.—Austin 1989) (describing justiciable-interest analog to party status)
Gulf Ins. Co. v. Texas Casualty Ins. Co., 580 S.W.2d 645 (Tex. Civ. App.—Fort Worth 1979) (treatment of friendly suits in insurance/no-action contexts)