By Chandria T. Jackson
9/23/2008

A review of the recent venue decisions of the Texas Ninth District Court of Appeals may give one a slight feeling of Déjà vu. In two opinions issued the same day, the Court reversed and remanded, in part, the trial court’s denial of several defendants’ motions to transfer venue, and found venue improper in two multi-plaintiff, multi-defendant Benzene lawsuits. See Union Carbide Corp. et al, v. Loftin, et al, No. 09-08-061, 2008 WL 2369049 (Tex.App.-Beaumont, June 12, 2008) and Shell Oil, Co. et al, v. Baran, et al, No. 09-08-062, 2008 WL 2369030 (Tex.App.-Beaumont, June 12, 2008). As one might expect, the opinions were decided along the same lines as the Ninth District Court of Appeals’ previous opinion in Crown Central LLC, et al v. Anderson, 239 S.W.3d 385 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2007, pet. filed).1 The cases had similar facts and parties, just with new names. And even though the plaintiffs in Loftin and Baran attempted to create a few different plot twists, they met the same outcome. Now, as in Anderson, the Loftin and Baran plaintiffs’ claims will be severed for prosecution across multiple Texas counties.

Please click on the link provided below to view the article.

Files