Surgitek, Bristol-Myers Corp. v. Abel
997 S.W.2d 598, 42 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 993, 1999 Tex. LEXIS 84 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 15.003(a)(3), a plaintiff seeking to join a suit in a county where venue is otherwise improper must establish an 'essential need,' which requires a showing that it is 'indispensably necessary' for their specific claim to be tried in that particular county, a burden not met by the mere desire to pool resources with other plaintiffs.
Facts:
- One-hundred-six women allegedly sustained injuries from defective silicone-gel breast implants.
- The implants were manufactured by Surgi-tek, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., and Medical Engineering Corp. (collectively, Surgitek).
- Two of the women filed a lawsuit in Bexar County, Texas, where they could independently establish proper venue.
- The remaining 104 women, who could not independently establish proper venue in Bexar County, sought to join the lawsuit filed there.
- The plaintiffs asserted that joining together in Bexar County was necessary to pool resources against common defendants and experts.
Procedural Posture:
- One-hundred-six plaintiffs sued Surgitek and other defendants in a Texas trial court in Bexar County.
- Surgitek filed a motion to transfer venue for 104 of the plaintiffs, arguing they were improperly joined under section 15.003.
- The trial court granted Surgitek's motion, finding the joinder improper, and ordered the transfer of 104 plaintiffs' claims to other counties.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) filed an interlocutory appeal of the trial court's transfer order to the intermediate court of appeals.
- A divided court of appeals reversed the trial court's order, holding that joinder was proper.
- Surgitek (petitioner) appealed the court of appeals' decision to the Supreme Court of Texas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff's need to pool resources with other plaintiffs to litigate against common experts and issues satisfy the 'essential need' requirement under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 15.003(a)(3), thereby permitting joinder in a suit where venue would otherwise be improper for that plaintiff?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Enoch
No. A plaintiff's need to pool resources does not, by itself, satisfy the 'essential need' requirement of section 15.003(a)(3) to join a suit in a county where venue would otherwise be improper. The court reasoned that the plain language of the statute requires an 'essential need to have the person’s claim tried in the county in which the suit is pending.' This requires a plaintiff to demonstrate why it is 'indispensably necessary' for their specific claim to be tried in that particular county. The general benefit of pooling litigation resources is insufficient because it does not explain why the case must be heard in that specific venue over any other. The court noted that the trial court's order already kept the plaintiffs' claims consolidated, just in a different venue, which would still allow them to pool resources, thus undermining their argument that joinder in Bexar County was essential for this purpose.
Analysis:
This decision significantly restricts the ability of mass tort plaintiffs to join together in a single, preferred venue where most of them lack an independent basis for venue. By interpreting 'essential need' as 'indispensably necessary,' the Texas Supreme Court established a very high, fact-specific burden for plaintiffs seeking permissive joinder. This precedent strengthens the position of defendants in mass litigation, allowing them to more effectively challenge joinder and force claims to be litigated in various jurisdictions, potentially increasing costs and complexity for plaintiffs.
