1 ... S ee Te x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 0 8 - 2 6 0 - CV CA ROLE E O KL AN D, J ERE M Y APPE L L AN TS R O G E R S , D E E P A K M A L H O T R A , A N D D IN A H L E F F E R T , I N D I V I D U A LL Y A N D O N BEH A LF OFAL LOTHE RS SI M I L ARL Y S I T UAT E D V . TRA V ELOC I TY . C O M , I N C . A N D A PPELL EES TRA V ELOC I TY . C O M , LP

----- ----- --

FR O M THE 342ND DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I. I NTR ODUCTI ON A ppel l ant s C ar ol ee O kl and, Jer em y R oger s, D eepak M al hotr a, and D i nah Lef f ert , i ndi vi dual l y and on behal fofal l ot her s si m i l ar l y si t uat ed, appeal t he t r i al2

c o u rt’so rd e rss tri k i n g A p p e l l a n ts ’ th i rd a m e n d e d p e ti ti o n , d e n y i n g M a l h o tra ’s and Lef f ert ’ s m ot i on t o i nt ervene, and gr ant i ng A ppel l ees Tr avel oci t y. com , I nc. and T r a v e l oci t y. com , LP’ s ( col l ec t i vel y “ Tr ave l oci t y” ) pl ea t o t he j ur i sd i ct i on a nd m o ti o n to d i s m i s sfo r l a c ko f s u bj e c t m a tte r j u ri s d i c ti o n . W e w i l l a ffir m .

II . F ACTUA LAN DP ROCEDURALB AC KG ROUND O n Janu ar y 13 , 20 05 , Br uce D eat on, Steven Pol api nk, and C ar ol ee O kl and f i l ed t hi s put at i ve cl ass ac t i on l aw su i tag ai ns tTr ave l oci t y, al l egi ng c la i m s fo r v i o l a ti o n o f th e T e x a sD e c e p ti v e T ra d e P ra c ti c e sA c t (“ D T P A ” ), con ver si on, i m pos i t i on ofa co nst r uct i ve t r us t , an d m one y ha d a nd r ec ei ved . Th e or i gi nal cl ass act i on peti t i on al l eged t hatcust om er s w ho r eserve hotel r oom s t hr oug h T r avel oc i ty ar e aut om at i cal l y asses sed a “Taxes and Fees” char ge. A ccor di ng t o t he pet i t i on, the “‘ Tax es’ thatTr avel oci t y l evi es agai nst c u sto m e rs a re i n am o u n ts n e i th e r r e q u i red b y , n o r t e n d e red to, loc a l o r state tax i n g au th o ri ti e s, an d [ th e tax e s] are n o t dir e c tl yrel a ted to w h a t T rav e loc i ty a c tu a l l yc o n tra c ts to p a yth e h o te l i n ta x e s a t th e ti m e i t p u rc h a s e sth e ro o m .” M o reo v er , t he “Fees” char ged “do no tr el at e t o speci f i c servi ces, buti nst ead se rve asa hi dde n and /or m i sr epr es ent ed r eve nue st r ea m on t op oft he r eve nue gen er at ed f r om t he di f f er enc e b et w ee n w hatT r ave l oci t y char gesf ora r oom an d w hati tact ual l y pays f ort hatr oom . ” The or i gi nal cl ass act i on peti t i on al l eged2 ... Th e pr opo sed cl ass consi st s oft hose consum er s w ho, f r om O ct ober

1, 2002 , to t he pr es ent , “ ( 1) r es erved hot elac com m oda t i onsonl i ne t hr ough [ Tr ave l oci t y] , ( 2) r ec ei ved a quot e t hats pec i f i ed a p r i cef ort he ac com m oda t i ons pl usa cha r ge f or‘ t axe s and f ee s, ’ an d ( 3) pa i d Tr ave l oci t y f ort he a c c o m m o d a ti o n sp l u sth e ‘ta x e sa n d fe e s .’”

3 ... A ppe l l ant s do no tdi sp ut e t hatRoger s j oi ned t he l aw su i tasa put at i ve c l a s s re p re s e n ta ti v e o n A p ri l 9 , 2 0 0 7 . S ee Tex . R. A pp. P. 38 . 1( g) ( st at i ng t hat i n a c i v i l case, t he courtw i l l acceptas t r ue t he f act s st at ed unl ess anot her p a rtyc o n tra d i c ts th e m ).

4 ... Thi s i s t he ea r l i es tda t ed pl ea di ng i n t he r ec or d i den t i f yi ng L ef f ertan d M al hotr a as nam ed pl ai nt i f f s. 3 t hatt he pl ai nt i f f s book ed r oom s t hr ough Tr ave l oci t y dur i ng t he cl as s per i od a nd w e re c h a rg e d “ ta x e sa n d fe e s ” a n d , c o n s e q u e n tl y , “e x c e s s i v e ro o m ra te s .” 2 O n M ar ch 2 0 , 2 0 0 6 , th e t r i al courtsi gned an or derofnonsui ti n w hi ch i tnot ed and con f i r m ed thatPol api nk had no nsui t ed hi s cl ai m s agai nst T r a v e lo c it y . O n A u g u s t1 1 , 2 0 0 6 , t h e t r ia l c o u rts ig n e d a n o r d e ro fn o n s u it not i ng a nd c onf i r m i ng t hatD ea t on ha d non su i t ed hi s cl ai m s aga i ns tTr ave l oci t y. T h i s l e ft O k l a n d as the so l e rem a in i n g n a m e d p l a i n ti ff u n ti l

— a c c o rding to Tr ave l oci t y— Jer em y Roge r s j oi ned t he l aw su i tasa put at i ve c l a s sr e p r e s e n t a t i ve on Apr i l 9, 2007 . 3 O n August 8, 200 7, A ppe l l ant s f i l ed a t hi r d a m end ed cl as s ac t i on pe t i t i on l i st i ng Okl and , Roger s, Lef f ert , and M al hot r a asna m ed pl ai nt i f f s and as se rt i ng a n ad d i ti o n a l ca u se o f ac ti o n for b rea c h o f co n tr a c t. 4Tr avel oci t y t her eaft er f i l ed a m ot i on t o st r i keA ppe l l ant s’ t hi r d a m end ed cl as s ac t i on pe t i t i on, ar gui ng4

t hatt he pet i t i on un f ai r l y sur pr i sed and pr ej udi ced t hem and dem onst r at ed a l ack ofdi l i gen ceby A ppe l l ant s. The t r i alco urtgr anted Tr ave l oci t y’ s m ot i on on Nov e m be r30, 2007 . O n Febr uary 14, 2008 , Tr ave l oci t y f i l ed i t s pl eat o t he j ur i sd i ct i on a nd m ot i on t o di sm i ssf orl ac k o fs ubj ec tm att erj ur i sd i ct i on, ar gui ng t hatO kl and , t he onl y r em ai ni ng or i gi nal l y- nam ed pl ai nt i f f , l acked st andi ng t o asserther st at ut ory a nd c om m on l aw cl ai m s bec aus e s he di d notpa y f ort he t r ans ac t i ons m adet he bas i s ofhe rcl ai m s and , t her ef or e, s uf f er ed no i nj ury c apa bl e o f r edr es s by t he l aw su i t . Tr ave l oci t y a r gue d t hatbe ca us e Okl and l ac ke d s t and i ng att he t i m e sui tw as f i l ed, the t r i al co urtl acked subj ectm at t erj ur i sdi ct i on ov er a l l o f t h e clas s c l a i m s, n e c e ss i tati n g d is m iss a l o f t h e en ti re s u i t. T rav e l o c i ty add i t i ona l l y a nd a l t er nat i vel y a r gu ed t hatRoger s l ac ke d s t and i ng be ca us e t he onl y ba si s f ort he cl ai m s he as se rt ed aga i ns tTr ave l oci t y w er e b us i nes s t r i psf or w hi ch he w asl at err ei m bur se d. B e fo re th e tri a l c o u rt ru l e d o n T ra v e l o c i ty ’s p l e a to th e j u ri s d i c ti o n , L e ffe rt a n d M a lh o t r a f i l e d a m o t io n t o in t e rv e n e in t h e la w s u it , c o n t e n d in g t h a tt h e ir c la im s re g a r d e d t h e s a m e f a c t s a s t h o s e o fO k la n d a n d R o g e r sa n d t h a tt h e ir i n t erven t i on w ou l d no t r esu l t i n an y prej ud i ce t o T r av el oc i t y. T he t r i al co u rt d e n ie d t h e m o t io n t o in t e rv e n e . T h a ts a m e d a y , t h e t r ia l c o u rtin d ic a t e d o r a lly t hatTr ave l oci t y’ s pl ea t o t he j ur i sd i ct i on and m ot i on t o di sm i ssast o O kl and5

w as gr ant ed. The t r i al courtgave R oger s addi t i onal t i m e t o dem onst r at e t hat he used T rav e l o c i t y t o boo k a per sonal t r i p, buti tul t i m at el y si gned an or der gr ant i ng Tr ave l oci t y’ s pl ea t o t he j ur i sd i ct i on a nd m ot i on t o di sm i ssf orl ac k o f su bj ec tm att erj ur i sd i ct i on i n i t s ent i r et y. Thi s app ea l f ol l ow ed. II I. T RAV ELO CITY ’SP L EA T O T HEJ URI SDI CT I ON A NDM OTION TOD I SMI SS

FORL AC K O FS UBJECTM ATTERJ URI SDI CT I ON I n t hei rt hi r d i ss ue, A ppe l l ant s ar guet hatt he t r i alcourter r ed by gr ant i ng Travel oci t y’ s pl ea t o t he j ur i sdi ct i on and m ot i on to di sm i ss f orl ack ofsubj ect m att erj ur i sd i ct i on. Appel l ant s ar guet hatbot h O kl and an d Roge r s hav e sta n d i n g to a ss e rtthe i r c la im s f o r vi o l a ti o n o f t h e D T P A , b rea c h o f co n tr a c t, i m p o si t i on of a const r uct i ve t r ust , and m oney h ad and r ecei ved. Tr avel o c i ty r epl i es t hatt he ent i r e l aw sui tw as appr opr i at el y di sm i ssed because O kl and l acks st and i ng. A . S t andar d ofRev i ew A p l e a to th e j u ri sd i c ti o n is a d i l a to ry p l e a , th e p u rpo se o f w h i c h i s to def ea ta c au se ofac t i on w i t houtr ega r d t o w het hert he cl ai m s as se rt ed hav e m e ri t. Bl

and ISDv. Blue , 3 4 S . W . 3d 5 47 , 5 54 ( Tex . 2 00 0) . W het hert he t r i al courthas su b j e c t m at t erj ur i sdi ct i on i s a quest i on of l aw t hatw e r evi ew d e n o v o . Tex. D ep’tof Par ks& W i ldl if e v. Mi randa , 133 S. W . 3d 21 7, 2266

( T ex . 2 0 0 4 ); Tex . Natural Res . Conservati

on Com m ’

n v. I T-D avy, 74 S . W . 3d 8 4 9 , 8 5 5 (T e x . 2 0 0 2 ). The det er m i nat i on of w het her a t r i al cou rt has su bj ec tm att erj ur i sd i ct i on b e g i n s w i th th e p l e a d i n g s . Mi randa , 1 33 S. W . 3d at226. The pl ai nt i f fha s t he bur den t o pl ea d f ac t s af f i r m at i vel y sh ow i ng t hat t he t r i al cou rtha s j ur i sd i ct i on. Tex. A ss ’

n of Bus . v. Tex. A i

r Control Bd. , 8 5 2 S .W .2 d 4 4 0 , 4 4 6 (T e x . 1 9 9 3 ). W e c o n s tru e th e p l e a d i n g sl i b e ra l l yi n fa v o r o f th e p l e a d e r, l o o kto th e p l e a d e r’s i n te n t, a n d a c c e p t a stru e th e fa c tu a l a l l e g a ti o n si n th e p l e a d i n g s . See Mi randa , 1 3 3 S .W .3 d a t 2 2 6 , 2 2 8 ; City o f Fo rt Wo rthv. Crocke tt, 1 4 2 S . W . 3 d 550, 5 5 2 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 4 , p e t. d e n i e d ) (o p . o n re h ’g ). I fa pl ea t o t he j ur i sdi ct i on chal l enges t he exi st ence ofj ur i sdi ct i onal f act s, w e co n side r re l e v a n t ev i d e n c e su b m i tted b ythe p a rt i e s w h e n n e c e ss a ry to r es ol ve t he j ur i sd i ct i ona l i ss uesr ai se d. Se eBl a nd ISD , 3 4S .W .3 d a t 5 5 5 . W e ta k e a s tru e a l l e v i d e n c e f a v o r a b l e to th e n o n m o v a n t a n d i n d u l g e e v e ry re a s o n a b l e i n fe re n c e a n d re s o l v e a n yd o u b ts i n th e n o n m o v a n t’sfa v o r. Mi randa , 133 S . W . 3d 228. I ft he evi den cecr ea t esa f ac tque st i on r ega r di ng t he j ur i sd i ct i ona l i ss ue, the n t he t r i alco urtca nnotgr antt he pl ea t o t he j u ri s d i c ti o n , a n d th e fa c t i s s u e w i l l b e re s o l v e d b yth e fa c t fi n d e r. Id . at 2 2 7

– 2 8 ; Bl

and ISD , 3 4S .W .3 d a t5 5 5 . B u tift h e re le v a n te v id e n c e is und i sput ed orf ai l s t o r ai se a f actquest i on on t he j ur i sdi c t i onal i ssue, t he t r i al7

c o u rtr u l e so n th e p l e a to th e j u ri s d i c ti o n a sa m a tte r o f l a w . Mi randa , 133 S .W .3 d a t 2 2 7

– 2 8 ; Bl and ISD , 34 S . W . 3d a t555. B. St and i ng The r equ i r em entofs t and i ng i s i m pl i ci t i n t he ope n cou rt s pr ovi si on oft he Tex as C onst i tu ti on and cont em pl at es accesst o t he court s onl y f ort hose l i ti g a n ts s u ffe ri n g a n i n j u ry . M. D . A nderson Cancer C tr. v. Novak , 52 S . W . 3d 70 4, 70 8 ( Tex . 2 00 1) . S t andi ng f ocuses o n t he quest i on of w ho m ay br i ng an a c ti o n , a n d it isd e te rm i n e d a t th e t i m e s u i t i sf i l e d in t h e tri a l c o u rt. Id .; T o wn of Fai rview v. Lawler, 2 5 2 S .W .3 d 8 5 3 , 8 5 5 (T e x . A p p .— D a l l a s2 0 0 8 , n o p e t.). A pl ai nt i f fdoe s notl ac k s t and i ng s i m pl y be ca us e h e c ann otpr eva i l on t he m er i t s ofhi s cl ai m ; hel ac kss t and i ng be ca us e h i s cl ai m ofi nj ury i s t oo s l i ghtf or a c o u rt to a ffo rd re d re s s . D ai m lerChrysler

Cor p. v. I nm an , 252 S. W . 3d 299, 3 0 5 (T e x . 2 0 0 8 ). S ta n d i n g i sa c o m p o n e n to fs u b je c t m a tte r j u ri s d i c ti o n . Tex. A ss ’ n of Bus. , 8 52 S . W . 2d at 4 45 . I fa part y l acks st andi ng t o br i ng an act i on, t he t r i al c o u rt l a c k ss u bj e c t m a tte r j u ri s d i c ti o n to h e a r th e c a s e . Id . a t 4 4 4

– 4 5 ; Lawler, 25 2 S . W . 3d at85 5. I fa co urtl acks subj ectm at t erj ur i sdi ct i on i n a part i cul ar c a s e , th e n i t l a c k sa u th o ri tyto d e c i d e th a t c a s e . Novak , 52 S . W . 3d a t708. I n t he cl ass act i on context , w het herthe nam ed pl ai nt i f fi s a pr opercl ass re p re s e n ta ti v e i s n o t p a rt o f th e s ta n d i n g i n q u i ry . Basham v. A udi ovoxCor

p. ,5 ... “ [ T] he f ac t t hat unna m ed cl as s m em ber s hav e st and i ng a ddsnot hi ng

to the i n q u i ry o f w h e th e r t h e n a m e d p l a i n ti ff i s a p rop e r pa rt yw i th sta n d i n g to r ai se i ssues gener al l y. ” Novak , 52 S. W . 3d at710 ( ci t i ng Si m on v. E. Ky. Welf are Ri ghts O r g. , 4 2 6 U .S . 2 6 , 4 0 n .2 0 , 9 6 S . C t. 1 9 1 7 , 1 9 2 5 (1 9 7 6 )). 8 198 S. W . 3d 9 , 1 2 (T ex. A pp. — El Pas o 2006, pe t . de ni ed) ( ci t i ng Novak , 52 S. W . 3d at710) . A nam ed pl ai nt i f fm us tf i r sts at i sf y t he t hr es hol d r equ i r em ent ofi ndi vi dual st andi ng att he t i m e sui ti s f i l ed, w i t hou tr egar d t o t he cl ass cl ai m s. 5 Novak , 5 2 S .W .3 d a t 7 1 0 ; se e al soTar rant County Com m ’

r s Courtv. Mar kham , 7 7 9 S. W . 2d 872, 876 ( Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h 1989, w r i tde ni ed) (“ W e b e lie v e t h e b e t t e rru le ist h a tt h e p la in t if f m u s t h a v e a p e r s o n a l s t a k e in t he l i t i gat i on att he t i m e off i l i ng sui t . ”) . A nam ed pl ai nt i f f ’ s l ack ofi ndi vi dual st and i ng a tt he t i m e s ui ti s f i l ed depr i vest he cou rtofs ubj ec tm att erj ur i sd i ct i on overt he pl ai nti ff’ s i ndi vi dual cl ai m s and t he cl ai m s on behal foft he cl ass. Novak , 5 2 S .W .3 d a t 7 1 0 ; see I nm an , 25 2 S. W . 3d at 30 7 ( “I f t h e n a m ed pl ai nt i f f s i n a put at i ve cl as s ac t i on do notha ve st and i ng t o a ss ertt hei row n i n d i v i d u a l c l a i m s , th e e n ti re a c ti o n [] m u s t b e d i s m i s s e d .” ). S t andi ng t o sue m ay be pr edi cat ed upo n ei t herst at ut or y orcom m on l aw a u th o ri ty . W

i l l i a m sv. L a ra , 5 2 S .W .3 d 1 7 1 , 1 7 8

– 7 9 (T e x . 2 0 0 1 ); Nausl ar v. Coor s Brewi ng Co. , 1 7 0 S .W .3 d 2 4 2 , 2 5 2 (T e x . A p p .— D a l l a s 2 0 0 5 , n o p e t.). T h e c o m m o n la w s t a n d in g ru le sa p p lye x c e p tw h e r e s t a n d in g iss t a t u t o r ily c o n fe rre d . S CI

Tex. Funeral

Servs. , I

nc. v. Hi

j ar, 214 S . W . 3d 148 , 1 53 ( Tex.9

A pp. — El Pas o 20 07 , pet . deni ed) ( op. on r eh’ g) . To est abl i sh com m on l aw st andi ng, a pl ai nt i f fm ustshow a di st i ncti nj ur y and a r eal cont r over sy bet w een th e p a rt i e s w h i c h w i l l a c tu a l l yb e d e term i n e d b ythe j u d i c i a l d e c l a rati o n so u g h t. Id . a t 1 5 3

– 5 4 ; s e e a l s o Inm an , 2 5 2 S .W .3 d a t 3 0 4

– 0 5 (“F o r s ta n d i n g , a pl ai nt i f f m us t be per so nal l y a ggr i eve d; hi s al l ege d i nj ury m us tbeco ncr et e a nd p a rti c u l a ri z e d , a c tu a l o r i m m i n e n t, n o t h y p o th e ti c a l .” ). W hen st andi ng has been st at ut or i l y confer r ed, t he st at ut e i t sel fserves as th e p ro p e r fra m e w o rk fo r a s ta n d i n g a n a l y s i s . Hi j ar, 214 S. W . 3d a t154. To m ee tt he D TPA ’ s st and i ng r equ i r em ent , a com pl ai ni ng pa rt y m us tpl ea d a nd pr ovet hati ti s a “ con su m er . ” Tex. Bus . & Com . Code Ann. § 17. 50( a) ( V er non S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ); Jones v. Star Houston, I

nc. , 45 S. W . 3d 350, 356 ( Tex. A pp . — H ou st on [ 1stD i st . ] 2001 , no p et . ) . To qu al i f y a s a c ons um er , t he per son m usthave sough tor acqui r ed goo ds or servi ces by pur chase orl ease, and t he goodsors ervi ce s pur cha sed o rl ea se d m us tf or m t he bas i s oft he c o m p la in t . T e x . B u s . &C o m . C o d e A n n . § 1 7 .4 5 (4 ); Ca m ero nv. Ter rell & Gar rett , I nc. , 618 S. W . 2d 535, 539 ( Te x. 1981) . A p l a i nt i f f ’ s s t a nd i ng as a con su m eri s es t abl i sh ed by h i s r el at i ons hi p w i t h t he t r ans ac t i on, notby a c o n tra c tu a l re l a ti o n s h i p w i th th e s e l l e r. Kenn e dyv. Sa le , 689 S. W . 2d 890, 8 9 2

– 9 3 (T e x . 1 9 8 5 ); L uka si k v. SanA ntonio Blue Haven Po ol s, I nc. , 21 S. W . 3d 394, 401 ( Tex. A pp. — San Ant oni o 2000, no p et . ) . T hu s, a per so n6 ... O kl and C onst r uct i on per f or m s “bi g” j obs “al l o verthe U ni t ed S t at es”

and has approxi m at el y 50 0 em pl oyees.

7 ... O kl and con f i r m ed t hatherson has a com puterathom e ( but she never us esi tt o m ak e t r ave l ar r ang em ent s ove rt he I nt er net ) an d t hatthe r e areno ot herco m put er s t hats he hasev erus ed t o a cc es s t he I nt er netf orpur pos esof b o o k in g t r a v e l. 10 nee d not be a di r ec t pur cha se r t o sa t i sf y t he r equ i r em ent t hat he see k or a c q u i re g o o d so r s e rv i c e sb yp u rc h a s e o r l e a s e ; i n v e ryl i m i te d s i tu a ti o n s , a t hi r d- part y be nef i ci ary m ay qua l i f y a s a c ons um er of goodsors ervi ce s asl ong ast he t r ans ac t i on w ass pec i f i ca l l y r equ i r ed by o ri nt end ed t o be nef i tt he t hi r dp a rtya n d th e g o o d o r s e rv i c e w a s r e n d e r e d to b e n e fi t th e th i rd p a rty . S ee Kennedy , 6 8 9 S .W .2 d a t 8 9 2

– 9 3 ; L uka sik , 21 S . W . 3d a t401. C . N o N am ed Pl ai nt i ffH ad S t andi ng W hen S uitw as Fi l ed 1 . O k la n d ’sD T PAC la im Th e r el evantj ur i sdi cti o n a l evi dence show s t hatO kl and i s em pl oyed at O kl and C ons t r uct i on i n t he ac cou nt s pay abl e d epa rt m ent . O kl and Const r uct i on isa c o r p o r a t io n ; O k la n d ’s h u s b a n d isV ic e P r e s id e n ta n d h isb r o t h e ris P res i d e n t. 6O kl and t r av el s “a l ot ” w i t h herhusband , and she uses a t r avel age ntort he I nt er neton t he of f i ceco m put er t o m ak e t r ave l ar r ang em ent s f or herhusband ’ s busi ness t r i ps. 7 O k l a n d u se d T rav e l o c i ty’s w e b sit e to b o o ktw o t r i ps t hatf or m t he basi s ofh ercl ai m s agai nstTr avel oci t y: one t o S cot t sdal e, A ri z o n a , a n d o n e to J a c k s o n , W y o m i n g . O k l a n d d i d n o t re c a l l a n yp a rti c u l a rs11

a b o u tt h e t r ip t o J a c k s o n , b u t s h e d id r e c a ll t h a t t h e p u r p o s e o ft h e S c o t t s d a le t r i p w as f or( 1) “Than ksgi vi ng, t aki n g o u r f am i l y dow n” and ( 2) busi ness. A l t hough O kl and cl ai m ed t hat t he Scott sd al e t r i p w aspa rt l y f orThank sg i vi ng, sh e used the com pan y c r edi tca r d t o pa y f ort he Scott sd al e t r i p, an d s he sp ec i f i ca l l y c onf i r m ed thatt he “c om pan y”

— nothe rorhe rhus ban d— pai d f or t he t r i p. O kl and C onst r uct i on al so pai d f ort he t r i p t o Jacks o n . A ther dep os i t i on, w hen O kl and s t at ed t hatO kl and Const r uct i on pa i d f ort he t r i p, s he a l s o s a i d , “B u t m yh u s b a n d w a sth e o w n e r s o i t’sth e s a m e p o c k e t.” A ppe l l ant s ar guet hat “[ b] as ed on t hes e f ac t s, O kl and cl ea r l y m ee t s t he def i ni t i on of a [ consum er ] w i t hi n t he m eani ng of t he D TP A . ” W e di sagr ee. A lt h o u g h O k la n d m a d e t h e re s e rv a t io n s , t h e e v id e n c e isu n d is p u t e d t h a ts h e d id notpe r sonal l y pa y f ort he Scott sd al e a nd J ac ks on t r i ps ; O kl and Const r uct i on p a id f o rt h e t r ip s . T h a tO k la n d h e r s e lfb o o k e d t h e t r ip a n d w e n tt o S c o t t s d a le w i t h he rhus ban d doe s noti n a nd o fi t sel fm ak e h era con su m erunde rt he D T P A b e c a u s e O k l a n d C o n s tru c ti o n — n o t O k l a n d

— p u rc h a s e d T ra v e l o c i ty ’s s e rv i c e s . S ee T e x . B u s . &C o m . C o d e A n n . § 1 7 .4 5 (4 ); Cam eron , 618 S . W . 2d at5 39 ( st at i ng t hatt o be a con su m erundert he D TPA , t he per so n m us tha ve so u g h t o racqui r ed goo ds orservi ces by purchase or lease ) . Ok l a nd C onst r uct i on has never assert ed any cl ai m s agai nstTr avel oci t y, and A ppel l ant s’ c o n t e n t io n t h a tO k la n d a n d O k la n d C o n s t r u c t io n a r e “ t h e s a m e p o c k e t ” is8 ... A t t h eh e a ri n g o n T rav e l o c i ty’s p l e a to th e j u ri sd i c ti o n a n d m o ti o n to

di s m i s s , t h e t r i a l c o u rtq u e s t i o n e d Ap p e l l a n t sa b o u tt h e l e g a l i m p l i c a t i ons concer ni ng t hei rcont ent i on t hatO kl and and O kl and C onst r uct i on ar e t he “sam e poc ke t . ” The f ol l ow i ng e xch ang e o cc ur r ed: Th e C ourt : A nd yo u’ r e t r yi ng t o, know i ngl y, l ay open t he per sonal l i abi l i t y oft he O kl and f am i l y f oranyi nj ur i es t hatm i ght be caused by t hi sb u s i n e s sb ys a y i n g i t ’ st h e s a m e p o c k e t . Ar e y o u s e r i ous a b o u t t h a t? [A p p e l l a n ts’ atto rne y ]: I ’m n o t attem p ti n g to l a yo p e n the i r l i a b i l i ty fo r a n y th i n g , Y o u r H o n o r. I ’m s i m p l y- - The Court : W el l , I w oul d hope not . Butt hat ’ s w hatyou ’ r e d oi ng. I fyou’ r e t aki ng t he posi t i on t hatthe corpor at i on i s t he i ndi vi dual s, ar en’ tyou l ayi ng t hem open f orl i abi l i t y cl ai m s? Hav e you cl ear ed w i t h Car ol ee O kl and and her f am i l y t hat t he pos i t i on y ou’ r e t ak i ng i n t hi s case w oul d basi cal l y adm i tthatthe cor por at i ons ar e a sham , and i t ’ s onepoc ke t , an d t hatt hey d on ’ ta ny l onge rha ve any cor por at e p r ot ec t i on? 12 w i t houtm er i tbe ca us e i ti s con t r ary t o bas i c pr i nci pl esofcor por at e l aw r el at i ng t o r ecover y f orhar m i ncur r ed by a co r por at i on. T hi s i s t r ue even i fO kl and w as a s har eh ol de rofO kl and Const r uct i on, w hi ch t her e i s no e vi den cet hats he w as. 8 S e eS wa n kv. Cunni ngh a m, 258 S. W . 3d 647, 661 ( Tex. A pp. — Eas t l and 20 08 , p et . deni ed) ( st at i ng t hata cause ofact i on agai nstone w ho has i nj ur ed a c o rp o ra ti o n b e l o n g s to th e c o rp o ra ti o n ); Re d m o nv. Gri

ffith , 202 S. W . 3d 225, 233 –34 ( Tex. A pp. — Tyl er2006 , pe t . de ni ed) ( st at i ng t hat“ a p l ai nt i f fw ho seeksi ndi vi dua l r edr es s bas ed on a l l ega t i onsco nce r ni ng w r ongsdonet o a cor por at i on l acks st andi ng, ” t hat“a cor por at e shar ehol derh a s no i ndi vi dual9 ... Th us, t he cases ci t ed by A ppel l ant s ar e i napp osi t e. See Cham rad v.

Vo lvo Ca r

so f N. A m. , 1 4 5 F.3d 6 7 1 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 9 8 ); Wel l bor n v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. , 9 7 0 F .2 d 1 4 2 0 (5 th C i r. 1 9 9 2 ). 13 ca u s e o f a c t i o n f o r p e r s o n a l d a m a g e s c a u s e d s o l e l y b y a w r o n g d o n e t o t he cor por at i on, ” and t hat“ t o r ec ove rf orw r ongsdonet o t he cor por at i on, t he s h a re h o l d e r m u s t b ri n g th e s u i t d e ri v a ti v e l yi n th e n a m e o f th e c o rp o ra ti o n ” ). Furt h e r , Ok l a n d i s n o t a c o n s u m e r a s a r e s u l t o f s o m e b e n e f i t t hats he i ncu r r ed st em m i ng f r om t he t r ans ac t i on be t w een O kl and Const r uct i on a nd T ra v e l o c i ty . See Kennedy , 6 8 9 S .W .2 d a t 8 9 2

– 9 3 ; L uka sik , 21 S. W . 3d at 401 . Al t hough pa rtofthe reason f ort he t r i p t o Scott sd al e w asf or T h a n k s g iv in g , t h e e v id e n c e d o e sn o td e m o n s t r a t e t h a tO k la n d C o n s tru c ti o n p a id f ort he hot elbook i ngsbe ca us e i tw ass pec i f i ca l l y r equ i r ed t o do s o byO kl and orbeca us e t he t r ans ac t i on w ass pec i f i ca l l y i nt end ed t o be nef i tO kl and ; O kl and t e s t if ie d t h a tO k la n d C o n s t r u c t i o n p a id f o rt h e t r ip b e c a u s e h e rh u s b a n d “ w ill g o i n to the o ffi c e a n d w o rk or g o to th e d i fferen t j o b si tes .” O k l a n d ’s b e n e fi t, i fan y, de r i ved f r om t he t r ans ac t i on bet w ee n O kl and Const r uct i on a nd T r a v e lo c it yisin c id e n t a l. 9 See Serv. Cor p. I nt ’ l. v. A ragon , 268 S. W . 3d 112, 11 7 ( Tex . A p p .— East l and 2 00 8, pet . f i l ed) ( expl ai ni ng di st i nct i on betw een p ri m a ryi n te n d e d b e n e fi c i a rya n d i n c i d e n ta l b e n e fi c i a ry ). A p p e l l a n ts a rg u e th a t th e c a s e sre l i e d u p o n b yT ra v e l o c i tya re d is t in g u is h a b le b e c a u s e t h e y w e r e d e t e r m in e d a tt h e s u m m a ryju d g m e n tle v e l,10 ... A p p e l l a n ts a rgu e i n the i r f i rst i ss u e tha t t h e tr i a l c o u rt ab u se d i ts

di scr et i on bygr ant i ng T r avel oci t y’ s m ot i on t o st r i ke A ppel l ant s’ t hi r d am ended cl as s ac t i on pe t i t i on, butw e o ver r ul e t hati ss ue bel ow . 14 not att he m ot i on t o di sm i ss l ev e l . B u t st andi ng i s a com pon entofsubj ect m a tte r j u ri s d i c ti o n , w h i c h c a n b e ra i s e d a t a n y ti m e . Tex . A ss’ n of Bus. , 852 S .W .2 d a t 4 4 5 ; Cadle Co. v. Bray , 264 S . W . 3d 205, 210 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [1 s t D i s t.] 2 0 0 8 , p e t. d e n i e d ). W e h o l d tha t t h e tr i a l co u rtd i d n o t err b yg ran ti n g T rav e l o c ity ’s p l e a to t he j ur i sd i ct i on a nd m ot i on t o di sm i ssf orw antofs ubj ec tm att erj ur i sd i ct i on on th e g rou n d tha t O k l a n d d i d n o t ha v e sta n d i n g at th e ti m e su i t w a s f il e d to pur sue herD TP A cl ai m agai nstTr avel oci t y. W e o ver r ul e t hi s partofA ppel l ant s’ t hi r d i ssue. 2 . O k l a n d ’ sC o mmo n L a w C l a i ms O kl and di d not pl ead a cl ai m f orbr each ofcont r acti n t he o ri g i nal cl ass a c ti o n p e ti ti o n ; sh e l i m i ted h e r co m m o n l a w clai m s i n tha t p e ti ti o n to con ver si on, i m pos i t i on ofa c ons t r uct i ve t r us t , an d m one y ha d a nd r ec ei ved . O kl and pl ea ded a cl ai m f orbr ea ch ofco nt r ac ti n t he t hi r d a m end ed cl as s ac t i on pet i t i on, butt he t r i alco urts t r uckt hatpe t i t i on. 10 T h e r e c o r d d o e sn o tc o n t a in a f i r stam end ed cl as s ac t i on pet i t i on ora se con d a m end ed cl as s ac t i on pe t i t i on. Th us, t he r ecor d does no t c o n t ai n a pl eadi ng t hatw as notst r uck i n w hi ch O k l a n d a s s e rte d a c o m m o n l a w c l a i m fo r b re a c h o f c o n tra c t. Se e Randle v.15

NCNB Tex . Na t ’

l Bank , 8 12 S. W . 2d 381, 384 ( Tex. A pp. — D al l as1991 , no w r i t ) ( r easoni ng t hatan am ended peti ti o n th athas been st r uck r est or es a p re v i o u s p l e a d i n g a sa l i v e p l e a d i n g ). A p p e l l a n ts h a v e n o t p ro v i d e d th i sc o u rt w i t h a s uf f i ci entr ec or d t o s how t ha tthe t r i alco urter r ed by g r ant i ng T ra v e l o c i ty ’s p l e a to th e j u ri s d i c ti o n d u e to O k l a n d ’sa l l e g e d s ta n d i n g to a s s e rt h e r co m m o n l a w clai m for b rea c h o f co n tr a c t. N onethel ess, t o t he ext entw e m ay det er m i ne w het herO kl and has st and i ng t o pur su e herbr ea ch ofco nt r ac tcl ai m , w e h ol d t hats he di d notha ve st and i ng t o a s s e rtt h a tc l a i m o rh e ro t h e rc o m m o n l a w c l a i m s . T h e r e i sno evi dence t hatO kl and suf f er ed a d i sti n ct , part i cul ar i zed, act ual i nj ur y because O kl and Const r uct i on, notO kl and , pai d f ort he t r i pst o S cott sd al e and J ac ks on. O kl and her se l f m ay hav e u se d Tr ave l oci t y’ s w ebs i t e t o boo k t he t r i ps , buts he di d not pay any o ft he “Taxes and Fees” and “exces si ve r oom r at es” t hat A p p e lla n t sc o m p l a i n o fi n t h e o r ig in a l c la s sa c t io n p e t it io n . O k la n d ’s in ju ryis h y p o th e ti c a l o r a b s tra c t. A p p e lla n t s a r g u e t h a tt o e s t a b lis h a b r e a c h o fc o n t r a c t , O k la n d n e e d o n ly show a val i d contr actan d a b r each because “atl eastn om i nal d am ages are t hen a v a il a b l e .” A s T rav e l o c i ty p o i n ts o u t, h o w e v e r, the j u ri sd i c ti o n a l i n q u i ry i n to st and i ng i s di f f erent fr om an i nqui ry i nt o t he m er i t s oft he cl ai m . St and i ng f ocuses on t he quest i on of w ho m ay br i ng an act i on, and j ust as a courtm ay16

not del ve i nt o t he m er i t s ofa cl a i m w hen deci di ng w het herst andi ng exi st s, A ppel l ant s m ay not cl oud t he j ur i sdi ct i onal i ssue w i t h m er i t - based ar gum ent s, e v i d e n c e , o r b o th . S ee Novak , 5 2 S .W .3 d a t 7 0 8 ; Bl a nd ISD , 34 S. W . 3d at 5 5 4 ; A VC OCor

p. v. I nter state Sw. , Ltd. , 251 S . W . 3 d 6 32, 654 ( Tex. A pp. — H oust on [ 14 t h D i st . ] 20 07 , pet . deni ed) ( st at i n g thatdam ages ar e a m att erofpr oofan d t hatco ns i der at i on ofda m age s goe s bey ond t he j u ri s d i c ti o n a l i n q u i rya n d i n to th e m e ri ts o f th e c l a i m ). A ppel l ant s al so ar gue t hatO kl and has st andi ng becau se she act ed as an a g e n t o n b e h a l f o f a n u n d i s c l o s e d p ri n c i p a l . See Per ry v. Brel

and, 16 S . W . 3d 1 8 2 , 1 8 7 (T e x . A p p .— E a s t la n d 2 0 0 0 , p e t . d e n ie d ) ( lis t in g e x c e p t io n st o ru le t h a ta n a g e n tm a yn o tm a in t a in a s u itin h iso w n n a m e b a s e d u p o n h is pr i nci pal ’ s cont r act ) . A ppel l ant s cont end t hati fO kl and w as acti ng f oran “undi scl osed pr i nci pal ” w hen she used T r avel oci t y r at hert han f orher sel f , t hen Tr ave l oci t y w asnotaw ar e oft he i den t i t y oft he “p r i nci pal ” unt i l w el l aft ert he l i t i gat i on com m enced, and O kl and’ s c ontr actw i t h T r avel oci t y i s enf or ceabl e. W e di sagr ee f ora f ew r easons. U nl i ket he age nti n Perry , w ho ga ve hi s ow n dr aftdr aw n on hi s ow n ba nk a c c o u n t, O k l a n d d i d n o t p e rs o n a l l yp a yfo r th e b o o k i n g s . S e eid . Al so , t he Per ry courtp oi nt ed out t hat“[ a] n agent contr act i ng f oran undi scl osed pr i nci pal h a s t h e rig h tt o s u e ifitisa p p a r e n tt h a tt h e c o n t r a c tw o u ld b e e n f o r c e a b le17

agai nsthi m i ft he opp osi t e part y sued. ” Id . H e re , O k l a n d C o n s tru c ti o n ’sfa i l u re t o abi de by i t s bar gai n w i t h T r ave l oci t y w oul d s ubj ec tO kl and Const r uct i on, not O kl and, t o possi bl e l i abi l i t y because O kl and C onst r uct i on pai d f ort he boo ki ngs. A d d itio n a ll y , A p p e ll a n ts d o n o t id e n tifyw h o th is“ u n d is c lo s e d p rin c ip a l”is . If th e “u n d i sc l o se d p ri n c i p a l ” i s O k la n d C o n stru c ti o n ( th e re i s n o ev i d e n c e to i ndi cat e t hati ti s any ot herent i t y orper son) , t hen A ppel l ant s ar e ar gui ng t hat O kl and shou l d be abl e t o m ai nt ai n herbr each of contr act cl ai m i n herow n nam e bas ed upon O kl

a n d Co n stru c ti

o n ’s co n tra c t w i t h Tr ave l oci t y. Thi s po si t i on— t h a tO k la n d C o n s t r u c t io n , n o tO k la n d , c o n t r a c t e d w it h T r a v e l o c i t y — isc le a r ly i n c o n s i s te n t w i th A p p e l l a n ts ’ o th e r s ta n d i n g a rg u m e n ts a b o v e . A p p e lla n t s ’ a r g u m e n tin s u p p o rto fO k la n d ’s b r e a c h o fc o n t r a c tc la im i ncl ude s anyar gum ent s m ader ega r di ng Okl and ’ s ot hercom m on l aw cl ai m s f or con ver si on, i m pos i t i on ofa c ons t r uct i ve t r us t , an d m one y ha d a nd r ec ei ved . W e h ol d t hatt he t r i alco urtdi d n ot e r rby gr ant i ng Tr ave l oci t y’ s pl ea t o t he j ur i sd i ct i on a nd m ot i on t o di sm i ssf orw antofs ubj ec tm att erj ur i sd i ct i on on t he gr oun d t hatO kl and l acks st andi ng t o pur sue hercom m on l aw cl ai m s agai nst Travel oci t y. W e over r ul e t hi s partofA ppel l ant s’ t hi r d i ssue.

3. R oger s’ s St andi ng and A ppel l ant s’Fi r stand S econd I ssues I n t he r em ai nderoft hei rt hi r d i ssue, A ppel l ant s ar gue t ha t Rog er s has st and i ng t o ass ertD TPA an d c om m on l aw cl ai m s aga i ns tTr ave l oci t y. Havi ng18

d e term i n e d tha t t h e tr i a l co u rtd i d n o t err b yg ran ti n g T rav e l o c i ty’s m o ti o n to di sm i sson t he gr ound t hatO kl and l ac ke d s t and i ng t o as se rt hers t at ut ory a nd com m on l aw cl ai m s, w e h ol d t hatO kl and l ac ke d st and i ng t o a m end he rpe t i t i on to a d d R o g e rs a s a n a m e d p l a i n ti ff. S ee Sum m itO f f i ce Par k, I nc. v. U. S. Steel Cor p. , 6 3 9 F .2 d 1 2 7 8 , 1 2 8 2 ( 5 th C ir. 1 9 8 1 ) (ho l d i n g “th a t w h e re a p l a i n ti ff nev erha d s t and i ng t o ass erta cl ai m agai ns tt he def end ant s, i tdoesnotha ve s ta n d i n g t o a m e n d t h e c o m p l a i n t . . . b ys u b s ti tu ti n g n e w p l a i n ti ffs ” ); Za nga ra v. T ra veler sI n dem. Co . o f

A m. , No. 1: 05CV731, 2006 W L8252 31, a t*2–3 (N .D . O h i o M a r. 3 0 , 2 0 0 6 ) (ho l d i n g tha t a p l a i n ti ff, stri p p e d o f stan d i n g to a ss e rta c l a i m ag a i n st d e fen d a n ts, h a s no sta n d i n g to am e n d the co m p l a i n t t o s u b s ti tu te a n e w p l a i n ti ff). A ddi t i ona l l y, w hen Tr ave l oci t y f i l ed i t s pl ea t o t he j ur i sd i ct i on a nd m ot i on t o di sm i ss, O kl and w as t he onl y nam ed pl ai nt i f fw ho had al so been nam ed at t h e t im e s u itw a sf ile d in J a n u a ry2 0 0 5 b e c a u s e P o la p in kn o n s u it e d h isc la im s agai nst T ravel oci t y i n M ar ch 2 00 6, D eat on no nsui t ed hi s cl ai m s i n A ugu st 2 0 0 6 , R o g e rsd i d n o t j o i n t h e la w s u i t u n ti l A p ri l 2 0 0 7 , a n d L e ffe rt a n d M a l h o tra w er e noti denti f i ed as nam ed pl ai nt i f f s unt i l A ppel l ant s f i l ed t hei rt hi r d am ended c l a s s a c ti o n p e ti ti o n i n A u g u s t 2 0 0 7 . H a v i n g d e te rm i n e d th a t t h e t r ia l c o u rt pr ope r l y gr ant ed Tr ave l oci t y’ s pl ea t o t he j ur i sd i ct i on on t he gr ound t hatO kl and la c k e d s t a n d in g , n o n a m e d p la in t if fh a d s t a n d in g t o p u r s u e h iso rh e rc la im s11 ... Ap p e l l a n t sa r g u e i n t h e i rr e p l yb r i e ft h a ts u bj e c tm a t t e rj u r i s d i c t i on

“ w a s e s ta b l i s h e d ” w h e n R o g e rs j o i n e d a s a c l a s s re p re s e n ta ti v e . T h is is i ncon si st entw i t h t he f und am ent al r equi r em entt hatst andi ng, w hi ch i s a com pone ntofs ub j ec tm att erj ur i sd i ct i on, m us tex i statt he t i m e s ui ti s f i l ed. S ee Novak , 52 S. W . 3d at71 0 ( hol di ng t hata n am ed pl ai ntif f ’ s l ac k o f i ndi vi dua l s t and i ng at the ti m e s uiti

s f i led depr i ves t he courtofsubj ectm at t er j ur i sd i ct i on overt he pl ai nt i f f ’ s i ndi vi dua l cl ai m s and t he cl ai m s on be hal foft he c l a s s ); cf. Co un t yo f Ca mero nv. Bro wn , 80 S . W . 3d 549, 555 ( Te x. 2002 ) ( st at i ng t hat w hen a pl ai nt i f ff ai l s t o pl ea d f acts t hates t abl i sh j ur i sd i ct i on, but t he pet i t i on do esnotaf f i r m at i vel y de m ons t r at e i ncu r abl e def ec t s i n j ur i sd i ct i on, t he i ss ue i s oneofpl ea di ng s uf f i ci enc y and t he pl ai nt i f f sh oul d beaf f or ded t he opport uni t y t o a m end ) . O kl and w asa nam ed pl ai nt i f fatt he t i m e s ui tw asf i l ed; R o g e rs w a s n o t. 19 agai nstT r avel oci t y atthe t i m e sui tw as f i l ed. Because no n am ed putat i ve cl ass r epr esentati v e h a d st andi ng t o pur sue hi s orhercl ai m s agai nstTr avel oci t y at t he t i m e sui tw as f i l ed, the t r i al co urtl acked subj ectm at t erj ur i sdi ct i on t o hear t he case, i ncl udi ng R oger s’ s subsequent l y f i l ed cl ai m s. 11 S ee I nm an , 252 S .W .3 d a t 3 0 7 ; Novak , 5 2 S .W .3 d a t 7 1 0 ; Tex . A ss’ n of Bus. , 85 2 S . W . 2d at 4 4 5 ; s e e a ls o Tex . Co m m erc e Ba n k, N.A . v. Gr izzle , 96 S . W . 3d 240, 255– 56 ( Tex. 2002 ) ( r ea so ni ng that re gar dl es s ofw hen am end ed pet i t i onsan d pur port ed i nt ervent i ons w er e f i l ed, t r i al courtst i l l had t o consi d e r nam ed p l a i n ti ff’s s ta n d i n g to b ri n g s u i t b e fo re g r a n ti n g i n te rv e n ti o n s ); Ki l patr i ckv. K i l patr i ck , 2 0 5 S .W .3 d 6 9 0 , 7 0 3

– 0 4( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rth 2 0 0 6 , p e t. d e n ie d ) (h o ld in g in p a rtt h a tb e c a u s e a p p e lla n tla c k e d s t a n d in g a tt h e t im e s u it w as f i l ed, t he sui t m ust be di sm i ssed even i fappel l antl at eracqui r ed an i nt er est20

s u fficie n t to s u p p o rt s ta n d i n g ). W e o v e rru l e t h e re m a i n d e r o f A p p e l l a n ts ’ th i rd i ssue. W e r eso l v e A ppel l ant s’ f i r stand second i ssues s i m i l ar l y. I n t hei rf i r st i ss ue, A ppe l l ant s ar gue t hat t he t r i al cou rt abu se d i t s di sc r et i on by gr ant i ng Tr ave l oci t y’ s m ot i on t o st r i keA ppe l l ant s’ t hi r d a m end ed cl as s ac t i on pe t i t i on. I n t hei r se con d i ss ue, A ppe l l ant s ar gue t hat t he t r i al cou rt abu se d i t s di sc r et i on by d eny i ng L ef f ert ’ s and M al hot r a’ s m ot i on t o i nt erven e. As ab ove , i fO kl and l ac ke d s t and i ng t o am end t he pet i t i on t o add Roge r s asa nam ed pl ai nt i f f , s he al so l acked st andi ng t o am end t he pet i t i on t o a d d Leff ertand M al hotr a as na m ed pl ai nti f f s. S e e Sum m itO f f i ce Par k, I nc. , 6 3 9 F .2 d a t 1 2 8 2 ; Tur ner v. Fi r st W i s. M ort gage T rust, 454 F. Supp. 899, 913 ( E. D . W i s. 1978 ) ( st at i ng t hat“ a t hi r d part y ca nnot i nt erven e pur su ant t o Rul e 24 oft he Fed er alRul esof C i vi l Pr ocedu r e i n a cl ass a c ti o n s u i t to save a cl ai m as t o w hi ch t he or i gi nal p la in t if fn e v e rh a d a c la im [, ] ‘ f o rt h e in t e rv e n o r sc a n n o tp o s s ib lyh a v e a c la im ordef ense in com m on w i t h a pl ai nt i f fw ho nev erhad a cl ai m ’ ” and t hat“a p l a i n ti ff w h o c a n n o t m a i n tai n h e r o w n c o m p l a i n t h a s no ri g h t to a m e n d . . . to br i ng i n ot her part i es w ho w i l l t her ea ft er r em ai n aspa rt i esw hen t he com pl ai nt i sd i s m i s s e d a sto th e o ri g i n a l p l a i n ti ff” ); Za nga ra , 2006 W L8252 31, a t*2–3 . M or eov er , be ca us e n o na m ed put at i ve cl as s r epr es ent at i ve had s t and i ng t o pur su e h i s orhe rcl ai m s aga i ns tTr ave l oci t y a tt he t i m e s ui tw asf i l ed, t he12 ... Becau se w e over r ul e A ppel l ant s’ f i r stand second i ssues on t hese

g rou n d s, w e n e e d n o t ad d i ti o n a l l yco n s id e r w h e th e r t h e tr i a l co u rtab u se d i ts d i s c re ti o n u n d e r ru l e so f c i v i l p ro c e d u re 6 3 a n d 6 0 . S ee Te x. R. A pp . P. 47. 1. 21 t r i al co urt l ac ke d su bj ec t m att erj ur i sd i ct i on t o c ons i derA ppe l l ant s’ i nt erven t i on a n d a m e n d e d p l e a d i n g i s s u e s . S ee Novak , 5 2 S .W .3 d a t 7 0 8 ; Lawler, 252 S .W .3 d a t 8 5 5 (st a ti n g th a t s ta n d i n g isd e te rm i n e d a t th e t i m e s u i t i sfi l e d ); see a ls o Gr izzle , 96 S. W . 3d at 256 ( con cl udi ng t hat bec aus e G r i z z l e had no l i ve i ndi vi dua l cl ai m , t he t r i alco urtpr ope r l y s t r uckam end ed pet i t i ons t hats ought t o a dd ne w cl as s r epr es ent at i ves ) . W e over r ul e Appel l ant s’ f i r stan d s ec ond i ssues. 12 IV . C ONC L USI ON H a v i n g o v e rru l e d a l l o f A p p e l l a n ts ’ i s s u e s , w e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt ’s j u d g m e n t. BI LLM EI ER J U S T I C E PA N EL: L I V I N G STO N , W A LKER, an d M EI ER, JJ. DEL I VERE D: J un e 18, 2009