Jesus Reyes v. Joaquin Guandique and Paul Transportation, Inc.
558 S.W.3d 330
Tex. App.2018Background
- On April 12, 2012, a vehicle driven by Hilario Cortez collided with one driven by Joaquin Guandique; Jesus Reyes (Cortez’s son) was a passenger and later sought damages for his own injuries.
- Cortez sued Guandique and Paul Transportation, Inc. on January 29, 2014 for Cortez’s personal injuries; Cortez did not assert claims on behalf of Reyes.
- Reyes filed a petition in intervention on August 21, 2015 (approximately 20 months after Cortez’s suit), asserting his own personal-injury claims against the same defendants.
- Defendants moved for traditional summary judgment, arguing Reyes’s claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations in Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003(a).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; Cortez later dismissed his claims with prejudice, and the trial court’s summary-judgment order became final.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Reyes) | Defendant's Argument (Paul Parties) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statute of limitations applies to intervention claims | No statute of limitations applies to claims asserted by intervention; interventions may be filed at any time | Statute of limitations applies to intervention claims | Statute of limitations does apply to claims asserted by intervention |
| Whether Reyes’s claims relate back because Cortez and Reyes share a single claim | Reyes contends his intervention relates back to Cortez’s timely filing because they share an interest in a single claim | Defendants contend Reyes’s claims are separate and untimely | Not raised below; court also held on the merits that the claims are separate and do not relate back |
| Whether Reyes’s intervention constitutes a new suit that nevertheless is not based on a new occurrence (avoiding limitations) | Reyes argues intervention is a new pleading that does not rest on a new transaction, so limitations should not bar it | Defendants treat Reyes’s intervention as a separate claim subject to the limitations period | Issue not preserved; court noted even if raised, it lacks merit |
| Whether Reyes’s justiciable interest in Cortez’s suit makes his untimely intervention relate back | Reyes claims a justiciable interest in Cortez’s suit so his intervention should relate back to Cortez’s timely filing | Defendants say justiciable interest does not avoid limitations for distinct claims | Issue not preserved; court concluded argument would fail on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- M.D. Anderson Hosp. & Tumor Inst. v. Willrich, 28 S.W.3d 22 (Tex. 2000) (summary-judgment burden-shifting and standard of review)
- Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tamez, 206 S.W.3d 572 (Tex. 2006) (summary-judgment review: crediting nonmovant evidence when reasonable jurors could)
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mayes, 236 S.W.3d 754 (Tex. 2007) (definition of genuine fact issue on summary judgment)
- Tex. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ledbetter, 251 S.W.3d 31 (Tex. 2008) (no filing deadline in rules for intervention does not negate statute of limitations)
- Exxon Corp. v. Emerald Oil & Gas Co., L.C., 348 S.W.3d 194 (Tex. 2011) (statute of limitations can bar claims asserted in interventions)
- Franks v. Sematech, Inc., 936 S.W.2d 959 (Tex. 1997) (intervention claims may relate back to original suit in certain circumstances)
- City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671 (Tex. 1979) (preservation-of-error principle: appellate review limited to issues raised below)
- Texas Commerce Bank, N.A. v. Grizzle, 96 S.W.3d 240 (Tex. 2002) (statute of limitations and intervention-related doctrines)
- Muller v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., 525 S.W.3d 859 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017) (trial court may strike untimely intervention under non-limitation timeliness analysis)