AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, a division of American Home Products Corporation, Petitioners, v. Fawn C. CLARK, Sylvia Jacobson, Anna Kraus, Sharlet Laws, Nancy Webster, Donna Welch, Delia Zeeh, Carol Bodily, Mary Jo Hall, and Shonna Bush, Respondents.
No. 99-1056.
Supreme Court of Texas.
Decided Dec. 21, 2000.
The Constitution lists four uses to which cities and counties may put property taxes. See
Second, we will not deem the Legislature to have accepted even a clear administrative construction that conflicts with a statute‘s plain language or clear purpose. See Fleming Foods, 6 S.W.3d at 282; Tarrant Appraisal Dist. v. Moore, 845 S.W.2d 820, 823 (Tex.1993). Although Section 26.04(e) does require the Comptroller to create forms for taxing units to use in their truth-in-taxation disclosures, the statute does not authorize the Comptroller to change the substance of those disclosures. See
IV
Conclusion
We hold that the District‘s publication of its unencumbered fund balances did not meet the requirements of Tax Code Section 26.04(e)(2). Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment. Because it concluded that the District had followed the Tax Code, the court of appeals did not address the District‘s other challenges to the declaratory judgment, the attorney‘s fees, and the trial court‘s finding that the District had acted in bad faith. We therefore remand the case to the court of appeals for consideration of the District‘s remaining issues.
David C. Duggins, Marnie Ann McCormick, Burgain G. Hayes, Kenneth J. Ferguson, Clark, Thomas & Winters, Patrick L. DeLaune, Austin, Grant Liser, Brown Herman Dean Wiseman Liser & Hart, Fort Worth, Leslie A. Benitez, Susan Elizabeth Burnett, Clark Thomas & Winters, Austin, Brian P. Leitch, Denver, CO, for petitioners.
Justice BAKER delivers the opinion of the Court in which Chief Justice PHILLIPS, Justice ENOCH, Justice ABBOTT, Justice HANKINSON, Justice O‘NEILL, and Justice GONZALES join.
This case requires us to interpret the interrelation between sections 15.002, 15.003, and 15.064 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. American Home Products Corporation and its division,
I. JURISDICTION
A. THE CODE PROVISIONS
Under the Legislature‘s general venue scheme, except as otherwise provided, all lawsuits shall be brought in the county of the defendant‘s residence at the time the cause of action accrued if the defendant is a natural person.
Any person seeking intervention or joinder, who is unable to independently establish proper venue, or a party opposing intervention or joinder of such a person may contest the decision of the trial court allowing or denying intervention or joinder by taking an interlocutory appeal to the court of appeals’ district in which the trial court is located under the procedures established for interlocutory appeals.
B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Here, eleven plaintiffs sued ten defendants in Johnson County, Texas, claiming injuries resulting from taking diet drugs commonly known as Fen-Phen. Nine plaintiffs live outside Texas, one lives in Gregg County, Texas, and only one lives in Johnson County, the county of suit. American Home does not challenge venue as it relates to the Johnson County resident. American Home filed a Motion to Transfer Venue, Objection to Attempted Joinder, and a Motion to Strike or Sever the Plaintiffs. It challenged the propriety of venue of the nonresident plaintiffs in Johnson County under both sections 15.002 and 15.003 of the Code. The plaintiffs responded to these motions by filing affidavits of each plaintiff, an affidavit of one of their attorneys, and affidavits of their experts. The trial court conducted a nonevidentiary hearing and denied all American Home‘s motions without specifying the grounds for its decision.
American Home filed an interlocutory appeal of the trial court‘s order. American Home asserted that the plaintiffs could not establish venue under section 15.002(a) and that they had failed to establish joinder under section 15.003(a). The plaintiffs contended that they had established venue under section 15.002(a) because each had individually sued the Johnson County physician who had treated the Johnson County plaintiff.
The court of appeals observed that the trial court‘s order did not specify on what ground the trial court had denied American Home‘s Motion to Transfer. Thus, the court could not determine whether it had jurisdiction of American Home‘s appeal.
The trial court signed a revised order, which held that (1) the plaintiffs each established venue against the Johnson County physician under section 15.002(a)(2), and (2) because the plaintiffs established venue against the physician, venue was proper against all other defendants under section 15.005. Subsequently, the court of appeals, with one judge dissenting, held that because the trial court‘s denial of American Home‘s motions was under section 15.002, it had no interlocutory-appeal jurisdiction. 999 S.W.2d 908. Here, American Home raises two issues: (1) whether the court of appeals abused its discretion by abating the appeal and requiring the trial court to enter a clarifying order; and (2) whether, under section 15.003(c), a court of appeals has interlocutory appellate jurisdiction over all venue decisions that relate to intervention or joinder.
C. ANALYSIS
American Home recognizes that the law requires a party to wait until a final judgment is entered in a case to appeal an erroneous venue ruling See
American Home recognizes that a court of appeals may only exercise interlocutory jurisdiction under section 15.003 if the joining party is unable to establish proper venue independently under section 15.002. But American Home also notes that section 15.003 requires a court of appeals to decide the joinder issue based upon an independent determination from the record. Therefore, it contends that when a plaintiff argues venue under both sections 15.002 and 15.003, the court of appeals must independently determine whether the plaintiff can establish venue under section 15.002 to determine whether it has jurisdiction under section 15.003.
American Home further contends that a court of appeals must be able to review a trial court‘s decision to permit a multi-plaintiff case to proceed in the face of a venue or joinder challenge, regardless of the expressed basis for the trial court‘s decision, if section 15.003 is to retain any meaning. Thus, American Home argues, to determine its own jurisdiction under section 15.003(c), a court of appeals must decide whether a party is a person unable to independently establish proper venue.
On the other hand, the plaintiffs argue that the Legislature has expressly mandated that venue determinations are not subject to interlocutory appeal. See
When we construe a statute, our objective is to determine and give effect to the Legislature‘s intent.
Section 15.003 is not a venue statute; it is a joinder statute. The statute allows an interlocutory appeal for one specific purpose: to contest the trial court‘s decision allowing or denying intervention or joinder. See
When the trial court‘s order necessarily determines an intervention or joinder issue under section 15.003(a), section 15.003(c) plainly allows for either party to contest that decision by taking an interlocutory appeal. See
American Home‘s argument that a court of appeals has interlocutory-appeal jurisdiction over all venue decisions that relate to intervention or joinder is without merit. Such an interpretation would make any trial court venue decision under
II. THE ABATEMENT ORDER
American Home also contends that the court of appeals violated
Here, American Home complains only about the court of appeals’ abatement order and asserts no complaint about the trial court‘s order. Accordingly,
III. CONCLUSION
We conclude that the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion in abating American Home‘s appeal and requiring the trial court to render a clarifying order. We further conclude that the court of appeals correctly dismissed American Home‘s appeal for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals’ judgment.
Justice ENOCH, joined by Chief Justice PHILLIPS, concurring.
I join the Court‘s opinion and judgment because the legal reasoning is correct and, therefore, the judgment is required. I write separately to express my concern about the trial court‘s role in this result.
By legislative enactment, if improper venue is the question, there is no interlocutory appeal.1 Nor is mandamus available, absent truly extraordinary circumstances,2 because an appeal is available once trial has concluded, and improper venue is automatically reversible error.3 This statutory scheme reflects a carefully crafted legislative compromise between plaintiffs’ and defendants’ conflicting interests: defendants cannot delay a trial through an interlocutory appeal, but a plaintiff who secures a trial in an improper venue faces reversal after that trial.4 In 1995, the Legislature carved out the narrow exception for joinder decisions that the Court examines today, but, as the Court correctly determines, this exception does not permit an interlocutory appeal for venue rulings simply because they are related to joinder.5 To rule as the dissent would, while bolstering the legislative response to Polaris Investment Management Corp. v. Abascal,6 essentially would undo the careful compromise reached on venue. But as this case demonstrates, potential mischief is abundant-a trial court, actually addressing joinder, can insulate its order from appellate scrutiny simply by holding that each plaintiff has independently established venue, even though such a holding on the record presented is clearly wrong.
The plaintiffs’ pleadings here are obtuse, perhaps intentionally so, with respect to who is suing whom for what. An example is this excerpt:
42. Plaintiffs bring this cause of action [Negligent misrepresentation] against
Yet only one doctor is named in the pleadings as a defendant, and only one of the eleven plaintiffs is alleged to have been treated by that doctor.
Having explored the pleadings, it is evident to me that only one plaintiff had a claim against the one resident defendant, the doctor. Thus, venue is independently appropriate in Johnson County only as to that one plaintiff.7 In fact, in opposing the other defendants’ efforts to have the remaining plaintiffs’ claims severed and transferred to another county, the remaining plaintiffs argued only that venue was proper because joinder with the one plaintiff‘s action was proper. It therefore baffles me why the trial court would sign an order concluding that venue was established independently as to each plaintiff.
This action not only baffles me, it troubles me greatly. To begin with, it seems to me that joinder of the claims in this case may arguably be proper. Had the order rested on that ground, appellate review would be immediately available and the issues could be quickly and appropriately resolved. But the trial court opted instead for a controversial decision, which by depriving a party of the opportunity for appellate review could undermine the appearance of impartiality so critical to the parties’ confidence in and acceptance of the court‘s authority.
In the end, as the record thus far demonstrates, venue likely will not be independently established as to each of these plaintiffs. And because improper venue is mandatorily reversible, the trial of this case will likely be a waste of time.8 Nevertheless, I am compelled to conclude, as the Court does, that the court of appeals correctly dismissed American Home‘s appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Justice OWEN, joined by Justice HECHT, dissenting.
Section 15.003 was a cornerstone of the Legislature‘s tort reform efforts in the 1995 legislative session. It was designed to preclude the joinder of multiple parties in a forum in which venue over their claims does not lie. More to the point in this case, it was intended to give appellate courts the power to bring a quick end to instances of blatant forum shopping. There should be no mistake about legislative intent. The Court disregards that intent. I therefore dissent.
I
The Court today sanctions a sham and a fraud on the legal system. The trial court did not have even a colorable basis for finding that each plaintiff in this multi-plaintiff suit established venue “independently of any other plaintiff.”
Eleven plaintiffs have joined in a single suit they filed in Johnson County, Texas. They have alleged that they were injured from taking drugs commonly called Fen-Phen. Seven of the plaintiffs are residents of Utah, and one is a resident of North Carolina. None of these out-of-state plaintiffs received prescriptions for or took Fen-Phen in Texas. The remaining two plaintiffs are Texas residents, but only one of them, Glenda Gallup, is a resident of Johnson County. The other Texas resident had no contact with Johnson County or residents of Johnson County other than to file her suit there. There are nine defendants, but only one of them, Dr. Arthur L. Raines, is a resident of Johnson County. He treated Gallup, but none of the other plaintiffs has had any contact or dealings with Raines, and the plaintiffs do not contend otherwise.
The court of appeals abated the case and requested the trial court to enter a more specific order. The court of appeals opined in its abatement order that if the basis for the trial court‘s ruling was that the plaintiffs had established venue under section 15.002(a), then the appellate court did not have jurisdiction. The trial court subsequently issued a revised order in which it concluded that because Raines was a resident of Johnson County, each plaintiff had established venue under sections 15.002(a)(2) and 15.005. The trial court further stated in its revised order that it “need not decide the issues” concerning section 15.003. The trial court did not attempt to address the fact that in their “Submission of Venue Evidence,” the plaintiffs, other than Gallup, offered only one basis for venue, which was their contention that the four elements of subsections (1) through (4) of section 15.003 (including essential need and the need for trial in the county of suit) had been met. Nor did the trial court attempt to explain how each plaintiff had established venue under section 15.002 based on Raines’ residency when only one plaintiff had been treated by Raines. There was absolutely no evidence in the record that any plaintiff other than Gallup had even asserted a claim against Raines. Accordingly, there was no evidence that any plaintiff other than Gallup had established venue under sections 15.002 and 15.005 and thus met the requirement under section 15.003 that each plaintiff establish venue “independently of any other plaintiff.”
The court of appeals held that since the trial court‘s ruling at least facially relied on section 15.002(a), “section 15.003(c) cannot be the jurisdictional basis for this appeal.” 999 S.W.2d at 910. The court of appeals therefore refused to consider the merits of the appeal and dismissed it for want of jurisdiction. Justice Gray dissented based on “[t]he plain language of section 15.003.” Id. at 911.
I agree with Justice Gray and the three other courts of appeals that have considered the issue presented in this case. In a multi-plaintiff suit, appellate courts are to determine in an interlocutory appeal whether each plaintiff has established venue independently of any other plaintiff as required by section 15.003. See Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Ebrahim, 10 S.W.3d 80, 83-84 (Tex. App.-Tyler 1999, no pet.); Blalock Prescription Ctr., Inc. v. Lopez-Guerra, 986 S.W.2d 658, 661 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.); see also Masonite Corp. v. Garcia, 951 S.W.2d 812 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding), mand. granted sub nom In re Masonite, 997 S.W.2d 194 (Tex.1999).
II
The Legislature has said in section 15.003 that when there is more than one plaintiff in a case, each plaintiff must establish proper venue independently of any other plaintiff.
§ 15.003. Multiple Plaintiffs and Intervening Plaintiffs
(a) In a suit where more than one plaintiff is joined each plaintiff must, independently of any other plaintiff, establish proper venue. Any person who is unable to establish proper venue may not join or maintain venue for the suit as a plaintiff unless the person, independently of any other plaintiff, establishes that:
(1) joinder or intervention in the suit is proper under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure;
(2) maintaining venue in the county of suit does not unfairly prejudice another party to the suit;
(3) there is an essential need to have the person‘s claim tried in the county in which the suit is pending; and
(4) the county in which the suit is pending is a fair and convenient venue for the person seeking to join in or maintain venue for the suit and the persons against whom the suit is brought.
(b) A person may not intervene or join in a pending suit as a plaintiff unless the person, independently of any other plaintiff:
(1) establishes proper venue for the county in which the suit is pending; or
(2) satisfies the requirements of Subdivisions (1) through (4) of Subsection (a).
(c) Any person seeking intervention or joinder, who is unable to independently establish proper venue, or a party opposing intervention or joinder of such a person may contest the decision of the trial court allowing or denying intervention or joinder by taking an interlocutory appeal to the court of appeals district in which the trial court is located under the procedures established for interlocutory appeals. The appeal must be perfected not later than the 20th day after the date the trial court signs the order denying or allowing the intervention or joinder. The court of appeals shall:
(1) determine whether the joinder or intervention is proper based on an independent determination from the record and not under either an abuse of discretion or substantial evidence standard; and
(2) render its decision not later than the 120th day after the date the appeal is perfected by the complaining party.
This Court has often said that in determining legislative intent, “we examine the old law, the evil to be corrected, and the object to be obtained.” E.g., Barshop v. Medina County Underground Water Conservation Dist., 925 S.W.2d 618, 629 (Tex.1996) (citing Crimmins v. Lowry, 691 S.W.2d 582, 584 (Tex.1985)). Similarly, the Legislature has told us that in construing a statute, we may consider factors that include the object the Legislature sought to attain, the circumstances under which the statute was enacted, former statutory provisions, and the consequences of a particular construction.
In that case, about 2700 plaintiffs sued Polaris in Maverick County. Only one of the plaintiffs was a resident of that county. Polaris Inv. Mgmt. Corp. v. Abascal, 890 S.W.2d 486, 487 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1994, orig. proceeding) (Rickoff, J., concurring). Many of the plaintiffs did not even reside in Texas. The trial court refused to transfer venue, concluding that the nonresident plaintiffs could properly join their claims with those of the sole Maverick County resident and that because venue was proper as to one defendant, it was proper as to all. Id. at 488. This Court referred to the plaintiffs’ ability to hold
The consequences of the Court‘s construction of section 15.003, to borrow a phrase from the Code Construction Act, is that the evil under the old law will not be remedied. If the Court had Polaris before it today, the result would be unchanged. The Court would hold that since the plaintiffs asserted and the trial court found venue under section 15.002(a), there is no right to an interlocutory appeal or other interlocutory relief. The Court‘s reading of section 15.003 is plainly at odds with unmistakable legislative intent.
Section 15.003 affirmatively requires each plaintiff to establish venue “independently of any other plaintiff.”
The Court‘s holding is illogical, and its interpretation of the language used in section 15.003 is tortured. An appellate court is entitled to determine if a party bringing an interlocutory appeal is a person who “may contest the decision of the trial court.”
Dayco Products, Inc. v. Ebrahim, 10 S.W.3d 80 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1999, no pet.), was another interlocutory appeal under section 15.003. The court of appeals, like the court in Lopez-Guerra, considered as a threshold matter whether twenty-three plaintiffs had independently established proper venue in the county of suit. Ebrahim, 10 S.W.3d at 83-84. After concluding that they had not, the court said, “we now must look to determine whether they established all four of the elements described in section 15.003(a).” Id. at 84. Similarly, in Masonite Corp. v. Garcia, 951 S.W.2d 812 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding), mand. granted sub nom In re Masonite, 997 S.W.2d 194 (Tex.1999), the court of appeals said, albeit in dicta, that section 15.003(c) “necessarily authorizes” an appellate court to review the underlying venue determination in reviewing whether a plaintiff was or was not properly joined:
It is true that section 15.003 requires a trial court to determine whether a plaintiff can independently establish venue in order to decide whether the plaintiff can join in a suit. Because section 15.003(c) authorizes an interlocutory appeal from a trial court‘s decision allowing or denying joinder, it necessarily authorizes an interlocutory appeal of the venue determination underlying this decision.
Masonite Corp., 951 S.W.2d at 817 (citation omitted).
Instead of determining, as directed by section 15.003, whether the plaintiffs in this case were unable to meet the requirements of section 15.003, the Court says that its hands have been tied by the Legislature. Even though the Legislature for the first time in our jurisprudence has expressly granted a right to an interlocutory appeal of joinder issues in section 15.003, the Court says there is nothing it can do to remedy improper joinder until after rendition of a final judgment. That may well be after a full trial on the merits. I am at a loss to understand why the Court denies power to appellate courts that the Legislature clearly wanted them to have.
In granting the right to an interlocutory appeal in section 15.003(c), the Legislature recognized the harm that can occur from forum shopping and the need for prompt
III
Venue lies in Johnson County only with respect to Gallup‘s claims. No plaintiff other than Gallup is a resident of Johnson County. The only defendant who resides in Johnson County is Gaines. No plaintiff other than Gallup makes a claim against Gaines. There is no basis under sections 15.002 and 15.005 for maintaining venue as to the remaining plaintiffs’ claims. Accordingly, those plaintiffs did not “independently of any other plaintiff, establish proper venue.”
Nor do subsections (1) through (4) of section 15.003(a) rescue the plaintiffs. Our decision in Surgitek, Bristol-Myers Squibb Corp. v. Abel, 997 S.W.2d 598 (Tex.1999), dispenses with the plaintiffs’ argument that they have an essential need to maintain venue in Johnson County. They contend only that they need to “pool resources for common experts and issues and to reach trial expeditiously.” We held in Surgitek that the need to pool resources will not carry the day. 997 S.W.2d at 604. Nor will proof that a plaintiff can obtain an earlier trial date in the county of suit suffice. Id. We said in Surgitek that “essential need” as used in section 15.003 means that it is “indispensably necessary” to try claims in a particular county. Id. Speed of trial does not meet the “very high” burden that section 15.003 sets forth. See id.
* * * * *
Because the Court seriously undermines the Legislature‘s efforts to reform the legal system, I dissent. I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand this case to the trial court with instructions to grant the motion to transfer.
Sylvester TURNER, Petitioner, v. KTRK TELEVISION, INC. and Wayne Dolcefino, Respondents.
No. 99-0419.
Supreme Court of Texas.
Decided Dec. 21, 2000.