In re U.S. Silica Co.

Decision Date11 February 2005
Docket NumberNos. 04-0270, 04-0271, 04-0297, 04-0308, 04-0309.,s. 04-0270, 04-0271, 04-0297, 04-0308, 04-0309.
Citation157 S.W.3d 434
PartiesIn re U.S. SILICA CO. et al. In re Badger Mining Corp. In re Norton Co., et al. In re Norton Co. (n/k/a/ Saint Gordon Abrasives) Siebe North Inc. and Textron Inc. In re Bacou-Dalloz Safety, Inc.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

PER CURIAM.

Ten silicosis cases involving hundreds of plaintiffs were filed in Cameron County and randomly assigned to six different courts. At the behest of different parties, three judges issued conflicting orders asserting jurisdiction over cases in their own courts or others. Because the Cameron County local rules permit a unilateral transfer only by the court where the first case was filed, we conditionally grant a writ of mandamus directing the others to vacate orders forbidding that transfer.

On May 30, 2003, a single attorney filed ten silicosis lawsuits in Cameron County. The allegations in each were identical, as were the 82 defendants. Only the plaintiffs varied — each suit included about 70, for a total of almost 700.

The cases were randomly assigned among the six district courts in Cameron County. Though all were file-stamped with the same time, consecutive cause numbers indicate the first case filed was assigned to the 197th District Court (Judge Migdalia Lopez presiding).

Thereafter ensued a scramble for possession. First on the field were the plaintiffs, who kicked things off by moving to transfer and consolidate all ten cases in the 404th District Court (Judge Abel Limas presiding). That motion was granted on January 6th.

Close behind came some of the defendants, who countered by moving to consolidate all ten cases in the 197th District Court, where the first case was filed. That motion, too, was granted on January 7th.

The reaction of the remaining courts varied. The 103rd District Court (Judge Menton Murray, Jr. presiding) took the second option, lateraling cases to the 197th District Court. The 138th District Court (Judge Robert Garza presiding) blocked, entering an anti-transfer order because no one had requested his consent. The 357th District Court (Judge Leonel Alejandro presiding) punted, signing a recusal order and transferring cases to the local administrative judge. That court, the 107th District Court (Judge Benjamin Euresti presiding), remained on the sidelines, taking neither offensive nor defensive action in the proceedings.

At this point, some of the contestants reversed field. Judge Limas rescinded his original consolidation order, but also signed an order blocking any transfer of the case originally filed in his court. Eventually, the plaintiffs followed suit, seeking to return all cases to the courts where originally filed, except for those transferred by recusal from the 357th.

Unable to determine the winner of these jurisdictional contests, the relators...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Txi Transp. Co. v. Hughes
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • May 24, 2007
    ... ... In Williams v. Steves Indus., Inc., the Texas Supreme Court decided an issue very similar to the one before us. 699 S.W.2d at 574. In Williams, the supreme court held that permitting an unlicensed driver-employee to drive did not automatically rise to the ... ...
  • Columbia Rio Grande Healthcare v. Hawley
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • March 23, 2006
    ... ... The evidence detailed above adequately assures us that a reasonable and fair-minded juror could find that Mrs. Hawley's chances of survival were greater than 50 percent at the time of the Hospital's ... ...
  • Chesser v. Lifecare Mgmt. Servs. L.L.C.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • August 31, 2011
    ... ... No expert testimony exists in the record before us of a standard of care applicable to these three doctors, no evidence exists of any breach of any standard of care, and no evidence exists that any ... ...
  • Benham v. Lynch, 04-09-00606-CV
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • February 2, 2011
    ...found that a sudden emergency resulted in Benham rear-ending Lynch, Benham would not be liable to Lynch for negligence. See Dillard, 157 S.W.3d at 434. Thus, because Benham's evidence raised a fact issue as to the existence of a sudden emergency, the jury's consideration of the factual disp......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT