How Not To Try to Expedite A Ruling

Originally published by Michael C. Smith.

Washington v. Trinity Industries Inc., 2:14cv1041 (5/15/2015) (Gilstrap, J.)

This is a product liability case arising out of an auto accident in North Carolina involving an allegedly defective highway guardrail.  Defendant Trinity sought transfer to the Northern District of Texas, which was its headquarters.  Judge Gilstrap found that North Carolina was the clearly more convenient venue, more so than either the Eastern or the Northern District of Texas.

It is what happened next that is interesting.

In an addendum to the opinion, the court noted that on May 15, while it had decided and was drafting this opinion and order, it received electronic notice that the defendants had filed an application for a writ of mandamus with the Fifth Circuit seeking to compel the court to grant the motion, as well as a ruling on an emergency motion to stay all proceedings and deadlines and request for expedited briefing that was filed less than seven business days before.

While noting that the application correctly stated that the motion to transfer had been fully briefed and ripe for two months, the court noted that Trinity failed to consider that it had other pending cases and motions besides their own:

In fact, this court routinely carries a weighed case load more than twice that of the average district court in this circuit. Pursuant to the Circuit’s own reports for the twelve month period ending December 31, 2014, this court had terminated 1236 civil cases and had 854 active civil cases on its docket—many with pending motions to transfer as well. This compares, during the same period, with the heaviest individual civil case loads (not counting MDL cases) in this court’s sister districts as follows: In the EDLA – 320 cases, in the MDLA – 221 cases, in the WDLA – 276 cases, in the SDMS 296, in the NDMS – 181, in the NDTX—550 cases; in the SDTX—369; and in the WDTX—554 civil cases. Since the first of this year there have been well over 500 motions filed with this Court, several of them styled as emergency matters. For Trinity to complain (by way of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus) when its motion has only been briefed and ripe for two months is woefully premature. For Trinity to effectively seek an “end-run” around the District Court by seeking a “first instance” transfer analysis and decision from the Circuit Court vis a vis its mandamus application is clearly unjustifiable.

This Court has often heard it said, from the most learned members of its bar, that lawsuits are a race for credibility, first with the court and ultimately with the jury. If that maxim is correct, as this Court believes it to be, then Trinity has stumbled in its race for credibility, in the misplaced hope of transforming the circuit court into its trial court of choice, through the premature use of a historically exceptional remedy.

Going forward, this Court recommends a modicum of patience coupled with a fair and realistic appreciation of the workloads of our district courts.

Accordingly, the Court transferred the product liability case to North Carolina.  The qui tam litigation involving defendant Trinity Industries continues to pend on Judge Gilstrap’s docket.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.

from Texas Bar Today http://ift.tt/1HtE2gI
via Abogado Aly Website