AUSTIN - The Texas Supreme Court has closed a “loophole” allowing “piecemeal” appeals that “can twist litigation from a straight line into a labyrinth.”
According to the June 6 opinion, the Texas Legislature addressed the problem in 1983 by setting a clear default rule: when a district court decides a venue question, no interlocutory appeal shall lie from the determination (Section 15.064(a) of the Texas Civil Code).
In 2003, a narrow exception to the rule was added to Section 15.003(b), which permits interlocutory appeals only in cases where a plaintiff’s independent claim to venue is at issue.
“Two more decades later, the courts of appeals have stretched this statutory exception into a gaping jurisdictional loophole, such that an interlocutory appeal concerning venue can be taken in nearly any case with multiple plaintiffs,” the opinion states.
“Today, we close that loophole and hold that the mere presence of multiple plaintiffs in front of the < v. > does not suffice to invoke appellate jurisdiction.”
The opinion stems from a lawsuit brought by Sean and Tori Sayre, who sued after their six-year-old child was killed by her school bus as she exited and crossed in front of it to go home.
According to the opinion, the bus was manufactured by Blue Bird Body in Georgia. Rush Truck Centers of Texas sold the bus to Brock ISD.
In September 2022, the Sayres filed suit in Dallas County against Rush Truck, Blue Bird, and Brock ISD, later dismissing their claims against the district.
Rush Truck and Blue Bird moved to transfer venue either to Parker County, where the fatal accident occurred, or to Comal County, where Rush Truck’s principal office is located, court records state.
A trial court denied the motion and an appellate court affirmed, finding that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the Sayres’ claims against Rush Truck occurred in Dallas County, including most activities related to the “supply” of the bus.
The high court found the two plaintiffs (the girl’s parents) assert identical claims and that the appellate court erred, vacating the judgment and remanding the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.
“We hold that where a trial court never needed to determine whether each plaintiff independently established proper venue – because the venue facts are identical for all the plaintiffs – Section 15.003(b)’s narrow exception does not apply, and Section 15.064(a)’s general rule against interlocutory venue appeals controls,” the opinion states.
“The court of appeals therefore lacked jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal, and we decline to reach the merits of the venue issue originally briefed by the parties.”
Rush Trucks and Blue Bird are represented by the Austin law firm of Germer Beaman and Brown.
The Houston law firm Abraham Watkins represents the parents.
Case No. 24-0040
