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.
BP Automotive LP D/B/A Bossier Dodge v. RML Waxahachie Dodge, LLC, RLJ-McLarty-Landers Automotive Holdings, LLC, RML Waxahachie Ford, LLC, and RML Waxahachie GMC, LLC
Citation: Not availableDocket: 06-16-00021-CV
Court: Texas Supreme Court; October 14, 2016; Texas; State Supreme Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Appellees RML Waxahachie Dodge, LLC, RLJ-McLarty-Landers Automotive Holdings, LLC, RML Waxahachie Ford, LLC, RML Waxahachie GMC, LLC, and RLJ-McLarty-Landers Automotive Group have filed a motion to consolidate appeal No. 06-16-00021-CV with related case No. 06-16-00041-CV. They argue that separate proceedings would waste judicial resources, incur unnecessary expenses, and risk inconsistent rulings. The underlying litigation began on January 26, 2010, when Appellant BP Automotive LP sued the RML Defendants and the fictitious entity RLJ-McLarty-Landers Automotive Group for tort and contract claims related to a dealership purchase. The Appellees contend that the Fictional Group lacks legal status to be sued. The Trial Court severed the case against the Fictional Group and granted summary judgment in favor of the RML Defendants in 2011. Appellant appealed these judgments; despite objections regarding complexity due to differing issues, the First Court of Appeals consolidated the cases and issued a single opinion. Following this, additional motions for summary judgment by the Appellees were granted by the Trial Court. Oral argument is requested. The RML Defendants' motions focus on collateral estoppel, while the Fictional Group's motion addresses both capacity and collateral estoppel. These decisions have been appealed and transferred to the current Court. Oral argument for Case No. 06-16-00021-CV is set, and the Fictional Group has also requested oral argument in Case No. 06-16-00041-CV. Both cases stem from the same claims and facts regarding alleged damages linked to a car dealership sale, with the same legal representation for all parties involved. Extensive litigation has occurred over the past six years across various courts, making the procedural history particularly relevant. Judicial economy favors consolidating these appeals due to significant overlap in pleadings and judgments. The claims against all Appellees hinge on similar arguments of collateral estoppel, which the lower court did not clarify when granting the Fictional Group's motion. Therefore, both capacity and collateral estoppel should be considered collectively. Consolidating arguments is essential to avoid potentially inconsistent outcomes, promoting consistency and uniformity in rulings. The Appellees request that the related cases be consolidated. The counsel for Appellees has conferred with opposing counsel, who opposes the request. The motion was electronically filed and served to all counsel involved.