Union Carbide Corp. v. Moye
1990 Tex. LEXIS 139, 34 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 111, 798 S.W.2d 792 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court abuses its discretion and violates procedural due process when it denies a party's motion for a continuance after the court's own actions misled that party into preparing for one form of evidentiary hearing (live testimony), and then abruptly changed the required format to another (written submission only), thereby depriving the party of a reasonable opportunity to present its evidence.
Facts:
- Over two thousand plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in Morris County, Texas, against Union Carbide Corporation and approximately four hundred other defendants.
- The lawsuit alleged that the plaintiffs suffered harm from exposure to toxic chemicals originating from the Lone Star Steel plant.
- Union Carbide believed it could not receive a fair and impartial trial in Morris County due to factors such as the large number of local plaintiffs and their extensive family ties within the county.
- The trial judge issued a pre-hearing order and made statements leading Union Carbide to anticipate that a hearing on its motion to change venue would be a lengthy evidentiary proceeding, potentially lasting up to eight weeks, where live witnesses would testify.
- In reliance on the court's indications, Union Carbide prepared its case for the venue hearing based on the presentation of live testimony, rather than a submission based solely on written documents.
Procedural Posture:
- Union Carbide filed a motion to transfer venue in the trial court, asserting that an impartial trial could not be had in Morris County.
- The trial court scheduled a hearing on the motion and issued orders that led the parties to prepare for an evidentiary hearing with live testimony.
- On the morning the hearing was to commence, the plaintiffs filed a motion to prohibit oral testimony.
- The trial court granted the plaintiffs' motion, ruling that the venue issue would be decided solely on the written record.
- Union Carbide then moved for a continuance to allow it time to supplement the written record with additional affidavits and discovery products.
- The trial judge denied the motion for a continuance.
- The trial judge overruled Union Carbide's motion to transfer venue.
- Union Carbide sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court of Texas to compel the trial judge to vacate his order.
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 trial court abuse its discretion by denying a party's motion for a continuance after the court, having led the party to believe a venue hearing would involve live testimony, suddenly rules on the day of the hearing that no oral testimony will be permitted?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Spears
Yes. A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a continuance under these circumstances. The trial court implicated itself in misleading Union Carbide as to the format for proof by first indicating a lengthy hearing with live testimony would occur, and then abruptly changing the procedure to a written-record-only submission. This surprise ruling effectively deprived Union Carbide of its fundamental due process right to notice and a meaningful hearing, as it was placed in the untenable position of being present for a hearing but unable to submit its proof in the newly required format. Denying the continuance also improperly prevented Union Carbide from exercising its right under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 258 to present its discovery products in support of its motion.
Concurring - Justice Hecht
Yes. While agreeing that the trial court abused its discretion by denying a fair opportunity to present written evidence, this opinion argues the court should have clarified the rules for future cases. I would hold that under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 258, a trial court is permitted to hear live testimony on a motion to transfer venue and must do so if, but only if, the issues cannot be fairly resolved on a written record alone, such as when a witness's credibility is a key factor. The trial court here appeared to believe live testimony was prohibited, and this court should have corrected that misinterpretation directly.
Concurring - Justice Gonzalez
Yes. This opinion concurs that the trial judge abused his discretion but would have established a broader rule. I would hold that when there is a factual dispute over whether an impartial trial can be had in a county, the parties have an absolute right to an oral hearing with live testimony under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 258. Issues of local prejudice are subjective and often turn on the credibility of witnesses, which a judge cannot adequately assess from a 'cold record' of affidavits and depositions. An oral hearing is essential to protect the fundamental fairness and integrity of the judicial process in such cases.
Analysis:
This decision emphasizes the core due process requirements of notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard, especially in the context of procedural rulings. It establishes that a court cannot penalize a party for relying on the court's own orders and statements regarding how a proceeding will be conducted. While the majority's holding is narrow, focusing on the denial of the continuance, the concurring opinions highlight a significant, unresolved issue in Texas law: whether live testimony is merely permissible or mandatory in hearings on motions to transfer venue for local prejudice. The case serves as a strong caution to trial courts against making last-minute procedural changes that prejudice a party's ability to present its case.
