Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Millennium Offshore Group, Inc. v. Sue Ellen Whittington
Citation: Not availableDocket: 14-11-00455-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; August 11, 2011; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
An interlocutory appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in the case Millennium Offshore Group, Inc. v. Sue Ellen Whittington, concerning the reinstatement of Whittington's intervention under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 15.003. Millennium Offshore filed suit against Apache Corporation and ATP Oil and Gas Corporation, alleging overcharges for compression fees. Whittington claimed entitlement to 50% of the proceeds from the suit based on a settlement agreement with Singleton. After a series of legal developments, including an interpleader petition from Apache and Whittington’s bankruptcy filing, the trial court initially struck her intervention but later reinstated it. Millennium argued that Whittington failed to independently establish proper venue in Harris County, as required by Section 15.003, which mandates that each plaintiff must prove venue independently in multi-plaintiff cases. The court concluded it lacked appellate jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal. The excerpt addresses the determination of venue in a legal case, stating that the county where the suit is pending must be a fair and convenient venue for all parties involved. An interlocutory appeal is permissible regarding a trial court's decision on whether a plaintiff has established proper venue or met specific criteria under the relevant subsections. Section 15.003 aims to prevent the joinder of multiple parties in an inappropriate venue. In the current case, no challenges to venue in Harris County were made by Millennium or Whittington, and while Section 15.003 is a joinder statute, it focuses initially on parties unable to establish proper venue. Interlocutory appeals are allowed for those seeking joinder or intervention when they cannot establish proper venue, or for those opposing such actions. However, since no party challenged the venue, the trial court’s decision to reinstate Whittington’s intervention is deemed not appealable, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The ruling is made by a panel consisting of Justices Brown, Boyce, and McCally.