In a mandamus proceeding before the Court of Appeals for the Ninth District of Texas, the court evaluated whether civil cases filed in the 60th District Court related to a temporary injunction suit in the 172nd District Court should have been consolidated there per Jefferson County's local rules. The court determined that the temporary injunction suit, filed first in the 172nd District Court, was the earliest case and that local rules mandated any subsequently filed cases to be consolidated into that court. The 60th District Court's decision to consolidate the cases into its court was found to be a failure to comply with these rules. Consequently, the court conditionally granted mandamus relief, instructing the 60th District Court to vacate its order from June 6, 2013.
The background involves a Thanksgiving Day collision in 2012 resulting in fatalities, leading Vincent Leggio Jr. to file a temporary injunction to preserve evidence against C.R. England, Inc. and others, assigned Cause Number E-193,633 in the 172nd District Court. Subsequently, Leggio filed a wrongful death suit (Leggio II) assigned to the 60th District Court as Cause Number B-193,657. Following a nonsuit order for Leggio I and a failed attempt to remand Leggio II to state court, the Leggios later filed another wrongful death suit (Leggio III) in the 60th District Court, assigned Cause Number B-194,401. In June 2013, they sought consolidation or transfer of the cases pending in both courts.
C.R. England sought to abate the Leggios’ motion to consolidate and instead requested the consolidation of the cases involving Francois and Leggio III into Francois in the 172nd District Court. On June 6, 2013, the judge of the 60th District Court ordered the consolidation of Leggio III and Francois into the 60th District Court. The consolidation process is governed by Texas Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 174 and Local Civil Rule 6, which stipulate that cases with common legal or factual questions may be consolidated to minimize costs and delays. Local Rule 6(B) mandates that all cases be consolidated into the earliest filed case, with decisions on motions for consolidation made only by the presiding judge of that case. Additionally, Local Rule 6(D) outlines the procedure for reassigning nonsuited cases back to the original court. The general common law rule in Texas establishes that the first court to file a suit maintains dominant jurisdiction, and if a second-filed case interferes, mandamus relief may be granted to resolve jurisdictional conflicts. The Leggios contest which case was filed first, arguing that Leggio I should not be considered the first due to incomplete identity of parties with subsequent cases. However, it was nonsuited and involved some of the same plaintiffs and defendants as the later cases, being the first filed related to the Thanksgiving Day collision. Local Civil Rule 6 aims to prevent forum shopping by requiring reassignment of nonsuited cases to the original court, a process deemed ministerial and independent of actual forum shopping concerns. The Leggios also contend that Leggio I, as an ancillary proceeding for a temporary restraining order, should not count as a case that can be nonsuited and refiled under Local Rule 6(D), but the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure permit grouping multiple claims against an opposing party.
Plaintiffs in Leggio I had the option to include a damages claim alongside their request for injunctive relief. The term 'case' in Local Rule 6 should align with its common legal definition, which includes all civil and criminal proceedings and does not exclude ancillary proceedings like those seeking temporary injunctive relief. This interpretation supports the rule’s intent to prevent forum shopping, as allowing a narrow definition would enable attorneys to fragment actions based on the type of relief sought. Leggio I is identified as the earliest case related to the Thanksgiving Day collision involving Vincent and Debra Leggio. The 60th District Court lacked authority under Local Rule 6(B) and 6(D) to determine case consolidation, indicating an abuse of discretion by the court. Although the Leggios argue that any trial court error on consolidation could be remedied through appeal, mandamus relief is necessary when a court oversteps its authority, particularly in matters affecting another court’s docket. Delaying resolution of disputes pending appeal could undermine local rules regarding case consolidation priorities.
The 172nd District Court's order of consolidation was found improper due to noncompliance with local rules. Relators successfully argued that an appellate remedy would be inadequate as it could lead to unnecessary expenses from multiple trials. The Texas Supreme Court has established that mandamus review can preserve substantive and procedural rights and avoid wasted resources from eventual reversals. The Leggios claimed the 60th District Court could have transferred the case administratively, but there was no evidence supporting that the local administrative judge executed the order in that capacity. Additionally, the record did not show that the 60th District Court acted as a visiting judge in the 172nd. Consequently, the court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the consolidation motion and ordered the vacating of the order consolidating the cases. A writ of mandamus will be issued if the trial court does not act promptly. The petition for mandamus relief was conditionally granted.
