In re Hurricane Rita Evacuation Bus Fire
| Decision Date | 06 March 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 05-1073.,05-1073. |
| Citation | 216 S.W.3d 70 |
| Parties | In re HURRICANE RITA EVACUATION BUS FIRE. |
| Court | Texas Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation |
Justice PEEPLES delivered the opinion for a unanimous Multidistrict Litigation Panel.
Before us is a motion to appoint a pretrial judge for six lawsuits, pending in two counties, which arise from one common incident. For the reasons stated below, we grant the motion without an oral hearing. See rule 13.3(k). A pretrial judge has been appointed by separate order.
On September 22, 2005, as Hurricane Rita approached the southeast Texas gulf coast, defendant Brighton Gardens evacuated some of the residents from its assisted living and health care facility in Houston, placing them on a bus that had been chartered through defendant Global Charter Services. Early the next day, the bus caught fire near Dallas, causing the death of twenty-three persons and injuring several others. Six lawsuits arising from this incident have been filed in state court— four in Hidalgo County and two in Harris County. Two other cases have been filed in federal court. The defendants have asked this panel to consolidate the eight state cases for pretrial proceedings before one judge. Several of the plaintiffs have objected to that request; one firm representing plaintiffs does not object, provided that a pretrial judge from Houston is chosen.
Administrative rule 13 empowers the MDL Panel to transfer related cases (i.e. those involving one or more common questions of fact) from trial courts in different counties to a single pretrial court for coordinated pretrial handling. The pretrial court's authority over transferred cases is extensive and complete. See Rule 13.6. From time to time, as the pretrial court concludes that cases are ready for trial, it will remand them to the original trial courts for trial in the county of venue. See Rule 13.7.
The MDL panel may order transfer if it will (1) serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and (2) promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. See Rule 13.3. The movant need not show that anyone has already been inconvenienced or that there are existing problems to be addressed. See In re Silica Products Liability Litigation, 166 S.W.3d 3 (Tex. M.D.L. Panel 2004). Instead we must simply be convinced that transfer to a pretrial judge would promote Rule 13's goals of convenience and efficiency.
These cases arise from one common event, and no one has seriously denied that the liability issues in each of them will be substantially the same. We recognize that different attorneys will develop and try their cases differently, that not every defendant before us has been sued in every case, that different expert witnesses may be involved, and that the damages will differ from case to case, as they always do. But the lawyers will be examining the same large pool of employees and fact witnesses. At the least, the witnesses will include those who dealt with the bus as it made its way from South Texas to Houston and then toward Dallas, those who witnessed the fire itself, those who responded to the scene to provide rescue and medical care, and those who investigated it. When rule 13 voices its concern for efficiency and for the convenience of parties and witnesses, it has such persons in mind. While none of them have yet been subjected to conflicting demands or repetitive discovery, we conclude that assigning one pretrial judge to handle the cases arising from this one tragic event will further rule 13's laudable goals of efficiency and convenience.
Plaintiffs argue that many of them are not similarly situated. Some plaintiffs, for example, were receiving healthcare at Brighton Gardens, and on some causes of action they may have to comply with the statutory rules for healthcare claims. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ch. 74. Other plaintiffs may have been on the job for their employers during the incident and may therefore face workers compensation issues that other plaintiffs do not. There may indeed be differences. But every case is different. No two cases are alike. A rule 13 transfer of cases does not require that the cases be congruent or anything close to it. It requires only that cases be "related"—i.e. that they involve one or more common questions of fact—and that transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Because these criteria are overwhelmingly shown in this group of lawsuits arising from the same event, the Motion to Transfer is granted.
The Joint Motion for Transfer, filed by Sunrise Senior Living Services, Inc. et al., under the Texas Rules of Judicial Administration, is granted. Pursuant to Administrative rule 13, the causes listed on the First Amended Appendix A of the Joint Motion for Transfer, attached hereto and incorporated herein for all purposes, and tag-along cases if any, are transferred to Judge Rose Guerra Reyna of the 206th District Court of Hidalgo County.
Enclosed for filing in the above-referenced cause are four copies of the First Amended Appendix A to the Joint Motion to Transfer Pursuant to Texas Rule of Judicial Administration 13, which was filed on December 20, 2005. An electronic version of the enclosed First Amended Appendix is also being transmitted to Ms. Claudia Jenks of your office.
Please file-stamp the enclosed extra copy of this document and return it in the self-addressed, postage-paid stamped envelope for our file.
By copy of this letter, all counsel of record are being provided a copy of the enclosed motion.
Thank you for your assistance.
FIRST AMENDED APPENDIX A
1. Cause No. C-2365-05-F; Aggie Foster,
on Behalf of the Person and Estate
of Lillie Spies v. Global Limo, Inc.,
Global Charter Services, Inc., d/b/a
"The BusBank", and Century MCT
Charter Tours, Inc., Global Limo, Inc.,
and Juan Robles Gutierrez; In the
398th Judicial District Court of Hidalgo
County, Texas ("Foster")
The following counsel have appeared to date in this litigation:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Champion Indus. Sales, LLC
...demands on witnesses, preventing inconsistent decisions on common issues, and reducing unnecessary travel. See In re Hurricane Rita Evacuation Bus Fire, 216 S.W.3d 70, 72 (Tex. M.D.L. Panel 2006). Procedures “making discovery more ... efficient” by minimizing the duplication of efforts inhe......
-
In re State Farm Lloyds Hidalgo Cnty. Hail Storm Litig.
...Deepwater Horizon, 387 S.W.3d at 128.6 See Tex.R. Jud. Admin. 13.2(f); Tex. Gov't Code § 74.162 (West 2013).7 See In re Hurricane Rita Evacuation Bus Fire, 216 S.W.3d 70, 72 (Tex.M.D.L. Panel 2006) ; In re Silica Prods. Liab. Litig., 166 S.W.3d 3, 6 (Tex.M.D.L. Panel 2004). Cf. In re Darvoc......
-
In re Wellington Ins. Co. Hailstorm Litig.
...convenience of the parties and witnesses and (2) promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation." See In re Hurricane Rita Evacuation Bus Fire, 216 S.W.3d 70, 71–72 (Tex.M.D.L. Panel 2006).6 See, e.g., In re Continental Airlines Flight 1404, 387 S.W.3d 925 (Tex.M.D.L. Panel 2009) ......
-
In re Cont'l Airlines Flight 1404
... ... The aircraft caught fire, and the 114 passengers and crew members on board were evacuated ... to distinguish the circumstances here from those in In re Hurricane Rita Evacuation Bus Fire, 216 S.W.3d 70 (Tex. M.D.L. Panel 2006). There, ... ...