### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-06-00113- CV

In re F luor En ter prises, Inc.; F luor Corporation; F luor Constructor s

International, Inc.; and F luor Texas, Inc.

ORI GINAL PRO CEEDING FRO M TRAVIS CO UNTY

O P I N I O N
This is an orig inal proce eding seeking a wr it of mandamus to direc t Respondent, the Ho no ra ble Mark Da vid so n o f the 11 th Judic ia l Di str ic t Court of Ha rr is C ounty , T e xas, to v a c a te his
or de r o f F e br

ua ry 23 , 20 06 , rem a nd ingthi s c a se to t he 34 5th Judic ia l D ist

ri c t Co ur t of Tr a vis County , Texas. I t was filed in this Court by Relators F luor Enterpr ises, I nc., Fluor Corpor ation, Fluor Constructor s I nterna tional, I nc., and F luor Texas I nc. (the “F luor Def en dants”). T he underlying lawsuit is an asbestos ca se involving a lleg ations of a de ath due to mesothelioma filed ag ainst a number of

defe ndants, including the Relators. On September 29, 2005, this lawsuit was
se t fo r tr ia l in the Tr a vis County Di str ic t Court fo r F e br ua ry 27 , 20 06. T he Fl uo r De fe nd a nts tr a ns fe rr e d th e laws uit

to t he a sb e sto s mu lti -d ist

ri c t li tig a tio n ( “ MD L ” ) p re tr ia l co ur t in Ha rr is County on Fe bruar

y 23, 2006. The same day , J udg e Davidson, the MDLpretria l judge , hear d the plaintiffs’ motion to remand a n d remanded the c ase ba ck to Travis County district court . Th is orig inal proce eding , as we ll as an Emer g ency Motion for Tempora ry Relief stay

ing the trial, wer e2

filed in this Court on F ebrua ry 24, 2006, seeking revie w of Judge D avidson’s orde r re manding the
c a se to t he Tr a vis County

tr ia l c ourt
. Th e qu e sti on

be fo re us is w he the r t

he MD Lpr e tr ia l c ourt abuse d it s d isc re tio n in
rema nding this ca se for

trial in light of Te x as Civil P rac tices and Reme dies Code sec tion 90.010. Section 90.010 i s a p o rt ion of the compre hensive statute de aling with asbestos and silica c ases eff ective September 1, 2005. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 90.001-.012 ( West S upp. 2005). Relators ar g ue that sec tion 90.010 preclude s the MDL pretria l court fr om reman d i n g this case f or tr ia l un til the pla int if

fs ser ve a repo rt on

the Re la tor s th a t c omp lie s w ithse c tio n 9 0. 00 3. I t is undisputed that the plaintiffs have not se rved suc h a re port. The plaintiffs, w ho are the Real Parties in I ntere st, arg u e t h at section 90.010 does not prohibit a re mand in this case whe n the Relators waited until four da

y s befor e trial to attempt t o transfe r t he case to the MDL proce eding and whe n the attempted tra

nsfer violated the MDL

pretria l court’s de adlin es set out in its case mana g ement
or de r. We d e ny

the Mo tio n f

or Em e rg e nc y

Re lie f a nd de ny the Pe tit ion

fo r Wr it o f M a nd a mus .
F acts This asbestos ca se wa s orig inally filed in T ravis County district c ourt on J anuar y 4, 2004. The plaintiffs seek damag es for persona l injury and wr ong ful dea th relating to the exposure of Sa m Wa lla c e , Jr. , d e c e a se d, to as be sto s f ibe rs . M r. Wal la c e ha d b e e n d ia g no se d w ith mesothelioma. The F luor Def endants a ppear ed pursua

nt to t h e T ra vis County

Standing Or der rela ting to asbe stos cases on F ebrua ry 14, 2005, and for

mally answe red on A

pril 28, 2005. Be cause it was filed in J anuar y 2004, the lawsuit is subject to the applica tion of MDL rules that we re a

uthorized by

the L eg islature in 2003. Tex. Gov’ t. Code Ann. § 74.163 (West 2005).The court signe d a second amende d order on Fe bruar

y 24, 2006—the day

afte r the c ourt 1 re mand e d th is c a

us e to t he Tr a vis County

Di str ic t Co ur

t. Although the case was filed in January 2004, citation was not ser ved until J anuar

y 2005. 2 The F luor Def

endants a ppear ed for

the first time in Fe bruar

y 2005. 3 Pursuant to these rules, the judicial panel on multi-district liti g a ti o n appointed the 11th District Court in H arr is County to a ct as the MDLpretria l court for consolidated pre trial proce eding s in asbestos
case s filed afte r September 1, 2003. See U nion Carbide v. Adams , No. 03 -0 89 5 ( Te x. M. D. L . Pa ne l, J an. 13, 2004). A s part of its deleg ated a uthority to manag e the MDL

asbestos docke t , t he MDL pretria l court ente red its orig inal case manag ement orde r on J uly 29, 2004, setting f

orth various proce dures f

or the manag ement of the docket, including de adlines for transfe rring

case s to the MDL pretria l court. In re Asbe

stos Li tigation , No. 20 04 -0 39 64 (1 1th Di st. Ct. , Harr is C ounty , T e x.). Th is
case ma na g e me nt o rd e r w a s late r a me nd e d b y

the MD Lpr e tr ia l c ourt ’s F ir st A me nd e d Ca se Manag ement Orde r enter ed on Dec ember 21, 2004. The amended c ase ma nag ement orde r did not 1

a lte r t he pr oc e dura l de a dli ne s a pp lic a ble to t he tr a ns fe r o f t

his c a se to t

he MD Lpr e tr ia l c ourt
. Th e Ca se Mana g e me nt Or de r re qu ir e d de fe nd a nts to tr a ns fe r the ir c a se wi thi n th ir ty day s of their a

nswer. Se e id ., par. I .A.1. The F luor Def endants did not transfe r this case to the MDL pretria l court by

this deadline. I

n fac t, the Fluor Defe ndants did not transfe r or attempt to transfer the c a se to t

he MD Lpr oc e e din g duri ng 20 05 or Janu a ry 20 06
. Th e fi rs t a tte mpt to t ra ns fe r t he c a se 2 to the MDLproce eding was on Thur sday , Fe bruar y 2 3 , 2 0 06, four da

y s befor e the sc heduled tria l setting in Tr avis County

District Court of Monday , Fe brua ry 27, 2006. The MDL

pretria l court wasted no time in consider ing an oral motion to rema nd, held a tele phonic hea

ring on the motion,4

and re manded the c ase the same da y it was transfe rre d. The re mand was g rante d by written orde r
s i gn ed b y J u d ge D av i d s o n an d

d o es n o td et ai l t h e b as i s fo r t h e r u l i n g. Be cause this case wa s pending on the date that chapte r 90 of the c ivil practice s and
reme dies code beca

me l aw, various portions of t hat s tatute apply
. Notably , the re quirement unde r section 90.003 for the claimants to serve a re port on ea ch def endant by a boar d-ce rtified phy sician in pulmonary

medicine, oc cupational medic ine, interna l medici n e, oncolog y , or patholog y stating that “to a re as onable de g ree of medica l probability , exposure to asbestos was a cause of the diag nosed mesothelioma.” T ex. C iv. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann
. § 9 0
. 0 03(a) (1)( B) (West Supp. 2005). The plaintiffs do not c ontest that the repor t is required nor

do they contest that they

failed to ser

ve such a r eport. The ir argument is, in essence , that the Relators wa ived their right to delay a trial ove r the fa ilure t o serve a re port by : ( 1) wa iting seve ral months to raise the issue, ( 2) for eg oing the ir rig ht to transfe r the c ase to the MDL pretria l court under t he provisions of the c ase ma nag ement orde r, (3) failing to seek a

continuance in the trial court, a nd (4) a nd raising the abse nce of

the re port for the fi rs t ti me on

the e ve of

tr ia l.
Jurisdi ction Un d er R u l e of J udicial Administration 13.9(b), an or der of the MDL pretria l court
may be re vie we d by the a pp e llate c ourt that re g ula

rl y re vie ws or de rs of

the c ourt in w hic h th e c a se is pending at the time re view is soug ht, irrespe ctive of w hether the cour t where the ca se is pending issued the order or judgme nt to be revie wed. Te x . R. J ud. Admin 13.9(b), re pr int e d in Tex. Gov’t Code Ann., tit. 2, subtit . F a pp. (West Supp. 2005). As a re sult of the rema nd order enter ed by

the MDLpretria l court on Fe bruar y 23, 2006, this case is curr ently pending in the 345th J udicial District5

Court of Travis County
. The Petition for Writ of Ma ndamus seeks r eview of

the orde r re manding the c a se fr om the MD Lpr e tr ia l c ourt to T ra vis County

dis tr ic t c ourt . T he re fo re , b e c a us e thi s c a se is curre ntly

pending in Travis Count y district court, thi s Court has j urisdiction to review the Fe bruar y 23, 2006, order

of the MDL

pretria l court re manding the ca se for trial. Se e id
. A question arise s as to the potential application of Rule of J udicial Administration 13 .5 (e ) a nd wh e the r the revi ew of

Judg e Da

vid so n’ s o rd e r l ie s e xclu siv e ly wi th t he MD LPa ne l. Rul e 13 .5 (e ) p ro vid e s: (e) T ransfer of Tag-along C

ases. A ta g - a lo n g c a s e is d e e me d tr a n s f e rre d to the pr e tr ia l c ourt

wh e n a no tic e of

tr a ns fe r—i n th e fo rm

de sc ri be d in

Rul e 1 3
. 5 ( a )

— i s f

i l e d i n b o t h t h e t r i a l c o u rta n d t h e p r e t r i a l c o u rt
. W i t h i n 3 0 d a ys afte r ser vice of the notice, a p ar t y

to the case or to any

of the re lated ca ses alre ady transfe rre d to the pretria l court may move the pre trial cou rt to remand the c a se to t

he tr ia l c ourt on the g

ro un d th at i t is no t a t

ag-a lon g c as e . I f the motion to remand is gr anted, the c ase must b e re turned to the trial c ourt, and costs including attorney

fee s may be assessed by the pretria l court in its remand o r d e r . T h e o r d e r

o f t h e p r e t r i a l c o u rtm a y b e a p p e a l e d t o t h e M D LP a n e l b y a motion for rehe aring filed with the MDL Panel Clerk.
Se e id . 13.5(e) (empha sis added).

I f this case was remanded on the g round that it is not a tag -along case , then the powe r to reviewthe order of rema nd would lie exclusively with the MDL Panel. The MDLpretria l court’s order is silent as t o the g rounds for r emand. The motion to remand was made orally and we have
no re c or d of the te le ph on ic he a ri ng . Our on ly ind ic a tio n of wh a t tr a ns pir e d duri ng the tele ph on ic hear ing is a statement in Re lators’ brief that the MDL pretria l c ourt “indicate d that it was rema nding the case in part be c a

us e it b e lie ve d th e MD Ltr a ns fe r w a s u nti me ly un de r t he MD Lc ourt ’s c a se manag ement orde r.”6 The Real Parties in I ntere st do not contest this C ourt’s jurisdiction to hear this matter purs ua nt t o Ru le 13 .9 (b ). Ne ith e r p a rt y ha s a rgue d th a t th is c a se is not a tag -along c ase unde r the MDLrules and, there fore , subject t o Rule 13.5(e)
. We have no rec ord that establishes that the MD L pretria l court re manded the c ase on the gro u n d that it is not a tag -along case . I ndeed, the MDL pretria l court’s orde r is titled “Orde r De ny ing T ransf er U nder Rule 13 of

Tag -along Case” s u g g esting that the MDL pretria l c ourt considere d the case a tag -along case and wa s remandingfor some othe r
re a so n. I n a dd iti on , it

is und isp ute d th a t th is ma tte r is a per so na l inju ry c a se in wh ic h th e c la ima nts
a re a sse rt inga n a sb e sto s- re late d in jur y . I t is , th e re fo re , “ re la te d to c a se s” th at were trans fe rr e d in the MDL Panel’s initial tra nsfer order to the asbestos MDL pretria l court. See Tex. R. J ud. Admin. 13.2(g ), re

pr int e d in Te x. Go v’ t Co de An n. , ti t. 2 , s ub ti t. F app. ( Wes t Su pp . 2 00 5) . T hu s, it qualifies as a

“tag -along case ” under the M DL rules. The MDL pretria l court did not indicate tha t it was g ranting the moti o n to remand on the basis that this case is not a tag -along case , i.e. , th a t it was not re lated to ca ses alleg ing asbestos-r elated persona l injury
. On this re cord, we c annot find that the c a se wa s r e mand e d o n th e g ro un d th a t it is not a ta g -a lon g c a se . Con se qu e ntl y , ju ri sd ic tio n to hear this original pr ocee ding de rives fr om Rule 13.9(b) rather than Rule 13.5( e).
Stand ard of Review

Mand a mus is a

n e xtra or din a ry

re me dy , a va ila

ble on ly wh e n a tr ia l c ourt

c le a rl y abuses its discre tion and when ther e is no ade quate r emedy by appea l. In re Ford Motor Co., 165 S.W. 3d 31 5, 31 7 ( Te x. 20 05 ) (orig . p ro c e e din g ). A tri a l c ourt c le a rl y a bu se s it s d isc re tio n if

it
rea ches a decision so arbitra ry and unreasonable as t o amount to a cle ar a nd prejudicia l error

of law, or if it clea

rly fails to corr ectly

analy ze or apply

the law. W

alker v . Pack

er, 82 7 S .W.2d 833, 8397

(T e x. 19 92 ) ( or ig
. pr oc e e din g ). We r e vie w the MD Lpr e tr ia l c ourt ’s or de r r e mand ingthi s c a se to the Tra vis County

trial court unde r an a

buse of discr etion standard.
Ana lys is As an initial matter, we note that t h e R elators attempted to transfe r this case to the MDL proce eding under subsection 90.010(b). Their notice of transfe r is titled “Notice of Tra nsfer Under Se c ti o n 9 0
. 0 1 0 ( b ) ” a n d r e c it e s th a t t

h e c a s e is tr a n s f

e r r e d “ p u r s u a n t t o Se c ti o n 9 0
. 0 1 0 ( b ) .” Howeve r, subsec tion 90.010(b) does not provide a basis for tra

nsfer o f t h i s ca s e to the MDL proce eding . Subsection 90.010(b) states, in pa rt: “I f the claimant fa ils to serve a r eport c omply ing with Section 90.003 or 90.004 on or bef ore the 90th day

afte r the da te this chapter become s law under Subsec tion (

a) ( 2) , th e d e f e n d a n t m a y

f il e a n o ti c e o f tr a n s f e r to th e M D L p r e tr ia l c o u rt. ” T e x. Civ. P rac . & Rem. Code § 90.010(b) ( emphasis adde d). B y its ex press ter

ms this provisi on applies to case s falling within the ambit of subsection (a) (2). Subsec tion (a)( 2) applies only to actions filed befor e September

1, 2003. This case was filed on J anuar y 4, 2004. Subsection 90.010(b) does not ap p l y an d , t h er ef

o re , ca n p ro v i d e n o b as i s fo r t h e t ra n s fe r o f t h i s ca s e t o t h e M DL pr o ce ed i n g. The re asoning behind this is revea led by the history o f ch ap t er 9 0 and the or igina l MDLstatute passed by

the L eg islature. Section 90.010 provide s that t h e MDL rules apply

to any action pending on the date that chapter 9 0 beca me law. Chapte r 90 bec ame law on September 1, 2005. At that time, the MDL rules already applied to case s filed af ter Septembe r 1, 2003, whe n the orig inal MDL statute beca me eff ective. Section 90.010 expanded the applica tion of the MDL

rules to case s alleg ing a sbestos-re lat ed i n j u ry filed prior to Septembe r 1, 2003. I t also cre ated a
me c ha nis m f or the se c a se s to be tr a ns fe rr e d to the pe nd ing a sb e sto s MD Lpr oc e e din g (w ithc e rt a in8

exceptions list ed in subsection (a ) of section 90.010 and not r eleva nt he re)
. Section 90.010 does not
c re a te a me c ha

nis m fo r tr a ns fe rr ing a sb e sto s c a se s fi le d a ft e r Se pte mbe r 1, 20 03 . T he me c ha nis m fo r t ra ns fe rr ing po st -S e pte mbe r 2 00 3 a sb e sto s c a se s to the MD Lpr oc e e din g a lr e a dy e xists a nd

is g overne d by

the MDL rules and the MDLpretria l court’s c ase ma nag ement orde r. Asbestos ca ses filed af ter Septembe r 1, 2003, are transfe rre d to the MDLproce eding or not transfe rre d based on the proce dures laid out in the MDL rules and the MDLpretria l court’s c ase man ageme nt order. Subsection 90.010(b) sets out what is to be done with case s filed be for e September 1, 2003, in whic h trial has not commenced bef ore the 90th day

afte r the c hapter

beca me law, a nd that do not involve a malig nancy . Subsection 90.010(b) simply does not addre ss any

issue rele vant to a ca se filed a fter September 1, 2003.

This interpretation is further re inforce d by the fa ct that asbe st o s case s filed af ter Se pte mbe r 1 , 2 00 3, ha d b e e n g ov e rn e d for ov e r a y e a r by the MD Lru le s a nd Judg e Da vid so n’ s c a se manag ement orde r at the time c hapter 90 beca me law. Under the ca se mana g ement orde r authorized by the MD Lru le s, a sb e sto s de fe nd a nts ha d de a dli ne s b y wh ic h th e y

ha d to a c t to tr a ns fe r c a se s to the MDL proce eding or their r ight to tra nsfer woul d b e wa i v ed
. This is the situation wit h the Re la tor s/D e fe nd a nts in t

his c a se . I f s e c tio n 90 .0 10 were in te nd e d to re viv e the ri g ht o f t he se defe ndants to transfe r their c ases to the MDL proceed i n g, o n e would expect to find a pr ovision addre ssing such a revival. Such a provision does not appea r i n section 90.010 despite t he fact that the L eg islature was awa

re of the ex istence of the MDL rules and Judge Davidson’s c ase ma nag ement order a t th e ti me it p a s s e d s e c ti o n 9 0
. 0 1 0
. I n li g h t o f th is h is to r y , w e a r e n o t p e r s u aded tha t we should eng raf

t a re vival of such tra

nsfer rig hts onto section 90.010.9 Relators point to subse ction 90.010(d) as evide nce that this case must remain in the MDLpretria l cou rt u ntil the plaintiffs serve a repor t that complies with section 90.003. Section 90 .0 10 (d ) p ro vid e s: (d ) I n a n a c tio n pe nd ing on the da te thi s cha pte r b e c ome s la

w tha t is tr a ns fe rr e d to or pending in an MDL

pretria l court and in whic h the claimant doe s n o t serve a re port that complies with Se ction 90.003 or 90.004, the MDL pretria l court shall not dismi ss the action pursuant to this chapte r but sha ll retain jurisdiction over the action under

the MDL rules. The MDL pretria l court shall not rema nd su c h a c tio n f

or tr ia l un le ss: (1) the claimant se rves a repor t comply ing w ith Section 90.003 or 90.004; or (2) (A) the claimant doe s not serve a repor t that complies with Section 90.003 or 90.004; (B ) the claimant se rve s a re port comply ing w ith Subs ection (f )(1) ; and (C) the court, on motion and hear ing, makes the f indings re quired by Subsection (f)( 2).
Tex. Ci v. Prac. & Rem. Code § 90.010(d) ( West S upp. 2005).

S u b s ec t i o n 9 0
. 0 1 0 (d ) d o es n o t cr ea t e a ri gh tt o t ra n s fe r a ca s e t o an M DL pr o ce ed i n g. I t provides that if a c ase pe nding on Septe mb er 1 , 2 0 0 5 , is transfer red to or pe nding in a

n MDL proce eding , it must rema in in the MDL proce eding unless cer tain require ments are met. The rig ht to be transf

err ed to or pe nding in a

n MDLproce eding has to derive from a sour ce othe r than subsection 90.010(d). Re lators ar g ue that the sour ce of the rig ht to transfer this case c omes from
su bs e c tio n 90 .0 10 (b ). Ho we ve r, a s w e have dis c us se d a bo ve , s ub se c tio n 9 0. 01 0( b) do e s n ot a pp ly to this case.10 Subsection 90.010(d) also does not abrog ate the pr ocedur al re quirements g overning transfe r to the MDL

pretria l court under

th e MDL rules and Judge Davidson’s c ase ma nag ement order . Subsection (d) provide s that if a ca se is tra nsfer red to or pendingin the MDLpretria l court and the c laimant has fa iled to serve a repor t, the case must stay there until the repor t is serve d or the claimant mee ts the require ments of subsection (f )(2) . This does not abrog ate the r equire ment that
a ca se be tra

nsfer red t o the MDL

proce eding in a manner

that complies with the applica ble MDL rules and pr ocedur es put in place by the MDL pretria l c ourt. This includes such re quirements as the timetables established by the MDL pretria l c ourt’s case manag ement orde r. Other wise, subsec tion (d) would stand f

or the proposition t h at ca s es which are pla inly excepted fr om the application of section 90.010 and the MDLrules, such a s actions filed be fore September 1, 2003, in whic h the expos ed person wa s diag nosed with mesothelioma, would be subjec t to a notice to transf er to the MDLand once there could not be re mand ed u n t i l section 90.003 repor ts were serve d. Such an in te r p r e tati o n is n o t c o n s is te n t w it h th e s tr u c tu r e o f c h a p te r 9 0 o r th e s p e c if

ic s tr u c tu r e o f section 90.010. We believe the be tter view is that subsec tions 90.010(a) and 90.010(b) a ddress rig hts and proce dural mec hanisms for ca ses filed be fore Se p te mb e r 1 , 2 0 0 3 , a n d s u b s e c ti o n 90.010(d) a ddresse s the dis po sit ion

of c a se s th a t ha

ve be e n tr a ns fe rr e d to the MD Lpr oc e e din g e ith e r p ur su a nt t o 90.010(b) or pursuant to the applicable MDL rules, and that rema in in the MDL pretria l court as of S e p t e m b e r

1 , 2 0 0 5
. T h i s c a s e f

a l l s i n n e i t h e r

c a t e g o r y. This question of interpre tation arises due to the way the proc edur e for tra

nsfer ring
c a se s to a n M DL

pr oc e e din g wo rk s. Un de r R ule of Judic ia l A dmi nis tr a tio n 1 3, a tr ans fer is
a c c omp lis he d b y

fi lin g a no tic e of tr a ns fe r. Mu c h like the pr oc e dure fo r r e mov a l to fe de ra l c ou rt ,This proce ss is sometim es re fer red to a s “tag g ing” beca

use it usually

conce rns the tra

nsfer 3 of “ta g -along case s”—ca ses that fa ll within t he subjec t matter of the MD Lproce eding at issue—and is effe ctive immediately

upon the filing of a notice of transf er pur suant to the MDL

rules. 11 the filing of such a notice of transfe r to a n MDLproce eding operates to, at least initially , transfe r the
case to the MDL

proce eding . Pursuant to Rule 13.5, a ca se is “dee med transf err ed” to the MD L pretria l court whe n the notice of transfe r is filed. This puts the case within the jurisdiction of the MDLpretria l court subject to that court’s review of the t ransf er a nd subject to any

motion to remand filed by a party who obj ects to the t ransf er. See Tex. R. J ud. Admin 13.5 and 13.7, re pr int e d in T e x. 3 Gov’t Code Ann., tit. 2, subtit. F app. (West Supp. 2005). Relators a rg ue that subsec tion 90.010(d)’s lang uag e to the ef

fec t that “an a ction p ending on the date this cha pter be comes law tha t is tra ns fe rre d to

. . . a n M

DL p re tri al c ou rt ” cannot be rema n ded by the MDL pretria l court except under cer tain circ umstances means that onc e a pa rty has unilatera lly

filed a notice of transf

er—i.e
. “tag g ed” the case to the MDLproce eding —the t ransf

er is acc omplished and the MDLpretria l court
c a n r e mand

on ly if the a dd iti on a l r e qu ir e me nts of su bs e c tio n 9 0. 01 0( d) a re me t. H ow e ve r, thi s is too strained a r eadingof subsec tion 90.010(d). Subsection 90.010(d) was passed by the L eg islature wi th t he ba c kd ro p o f t he MD Lru le s in

pla c e . Th os e ru le s g ov e rn ho w a ca se is t o b e tr a ns fe rr e d to the MDL pretria l court. Section 90.010 does not supply new rules, it relies on the application of the MD Lru le s. Sub se c tio n 9 0. 01 0( d) mus t be re a d with the ov e rl a y of the MD L ru le s in min d. Thus , if a c a se is tra

ns fe rr e d to the MD Lpr e tr ia l c ourt or is pen di ng in the MD Lpr e tr ia l c ou rt in
ac co rdanc e with the MDL rules, the MDL

pretria l court ca

nnot remand suc h a ca se unless the12

a dd iti on a l r e qu ir e me nts of su bs e c tio n ( d) a re me t. A ny oth e r r e a din g wo uld

c re a te pla inl y unintended conse quence s. For e x ample, it would allow:

• defe ndants to “tag ” ca ses excepted from the application of the MDL rules to the MDLpretria l court, such a s pre- September 2003 me s o t h elioma ca ses, and require the MDL

pretria l court to reta in these ca ses until the subsection (d) require ments are met; or

• defe ndants who have waived the ir rig ht to transfer a case (waited unti l afte r the MDLcase manag ement o rd er deadline) to “tag ” the c ase to the MDL pretria l c ourt a t any po int in the lit ig a tio n pro c e ss, inc lud ing po st- ve rd ic t, an d the n c la im the c a se c a nn ot b e re mand e d unti l th e su bs e c tio n ( d) re qu ir e me nts a re me t.
We do not believe subsection 90.010(d) was intended to be r ead this wa y . Section 90.010 and all of its subsections we re pa ssed by the L eg islature with t he MDL rules in ex istence a nd in effe ct. Those r

ules apply

to t h e ex t en t t hey

are not inconsistent with ex press statutory
re qu ir e me nts . Re qu ir ingtha t su bs e c tio n ( d) be re a d to a llo w the MD Lpr e tr ia l c ourt to r e mand

a c a se if the transf

er of the ca se wa s not in accor dance with the proce dural require ments of MDLrules or the MDL pretria l court’s c ase ma nag ement orde r is not inconsistent with the ex press statutory manda te of su

bs e c tio n ( d) . T he ri g ht t o tr a ns fe r a c a se is n ot a

bs olu te . I t c a n b e wa ive d a nd it i s g ov er n ed by

MDLproce dural rule s. Howeve r, once an asbe stos case is tra nsfer red in a ccor dance wi th t he MD Lru le s, su

bs e c tio n 90 .0 10 (d ) p ro vid e s th a t, i f i t is a pr e -S e pte mbe r 2 00 5 c a se , it mus t
rema in in the MDLpretrial co urt unless the re quirements of subse ction 90.010(d)( 1) or ( d)(2) are met. This case was not tr ansfe rre d to the MDL pretria l c ourt in a ccor dance with the MDLrules and the MDL pretria l court’s c ase ma

nag ement orde r. Ther efor e, it was subject to re mand by the MDL pr e tr ia l c ourt
.There is a lso no question that providing such a r eport in this case would have be en a ve ry 4 easy task since the only require ment was a statement by a boar d-ce rtified phy sician diag nosing Mr
. Wal la c e wi th m e so the lio ma . Wh y thi s w a s n ot d on e is no t clea r f ro m th e re c or d. Ho we ve r, it i s c le a r f ro m th e re c or d th a t the pla int if fs a re a lle g ingthat Mr . Wa lla c e die d a s a re su lt o f m e so the lio ma and ther e we re phy sicians designate d to testify to this fact. While these fac tors will not relieve a claimant fr om the obligation to serve a repor t that c omplies w ith chapter 90, they are rele vant when th e r e is n o s tatu to r il y ma

n d a te d r e me d y f

o r f a il u r e to s e r

v e th e r e qu ir e d r e p o rt ( s u ch as dismissal under se ction 90.007 or re tention in the MDLpretria l court under section 90.01 0 (d)) and the de fe nd a nt d oe s n ot e xer c ise dil ig e nc e in o bje c tin g to t he la c k o f a

re po rt
. 13 Finally , we a

re troubled by the fac t tha t Re lators waited until the Thursda y befor e a Monday trial setting to r aise the issue of a lack of a se ction 90.003 repor t and to attempt to transfe r the ca se to the MDL

proce eding
. This case was potentially transfe rra ble t o the MDL

pretria l court
as ea rly as F ebrua

ry 2005 when the Re lators wer e aw are of the e x istence of the ca se, the e x istence of the MDL

pretria l court, and the fact that it was an asbestos per sonal injury case . Relators ele cted to f or e g o tr a ns fe r t o th e a sb e sto s MD L pr e tr ia l c ourt un de r t he ru le s in

pla c e a nd

a pp lic a ble to t his
case in 2004. I n addition, the case was set for tria l in September 2005, over five months befor e the Fe b ru ar y 2 7 , 2 0 0 6 trial date. Chapte r 90 did not cre ate a new r ight of

transfe r to the MDL pr oc e e din g fo r tho se c a se s to wh ic h the MD L ru le s a lr e a dy a pp lie d, bu t e ve n if it ha d, wa iti ng ne a rl y six months after c hapter

90 beca me law, f ive months after

the ca se wa s set for tria l, a nd until the e ve of trial bef

ore r aising lack of

a re port as an i s s u e o r at t empting to tra nsfer the ca se to the MDL proce eding amounts to w aiver of such a rig ht unde r the circ umstances of this case and as a matter of equity
. There is no question that a repor t is require d by section 90.003. Howeve r, in ca ses filed 4 in t he tw o- y e a r p e ri od

be tw e e n Se pte mbe r 1 , 2 00 3, a nd Se pte mbe r 1, 200 5, in w hic h th e de fe nd a nts have w aived their

rig ht to transfer

to the MDLproce eding , the re medy for a failure to se rve a

repor t lies in the sound discretion of the t ri al co u rt
. The re medy does not include a

transfe r to the MDL14

proce eding as a ma tter of right to preve nt the commenc ement of a trial. As set out by

the L eg islature in its st atement of

the purpose of

chapte r 90, the c h ap t er wa s intended to re lieve litiga nts and the
c ourt sy ste m of

the bu rd e n o f c la ims by un imp a ir e d asb e sto s cla ima nts
. Ac t of Ma y 11 , 200 5, 79 th L eg ., R.S., ch.97, § 1, 2005 Tex. Gen. L aws 169, 169. I t was not i ntended to be a proce dural tra

p for c laimants with mesothelioma.
Conclusion We hold that section 90.010(b) doe s not create a rig ht of transfe r for asbestos ca ses filed af ter Septembe r 1, 2003, that is independe nt o f t he MDL rules. We also hold that section 90.010(d) doe s not require the MDL pretria l court to reta in case s filed after Septembe r 1, 2003, that
wer e not t ransf

err ed to the M DL pretria l court in acc ordanc e with the proc edure s established by the MDLrules. I n addition, we hold that eve n if section 90.010 ca n be interpr eted to cr eate a new rig ht to transfe r post -September 2003 case s to the M DL proce eding independe nt of the rules pr omulgated by the Su p r e me Co u rt a n d th e M D L p r e tr ia l c o u rt, th e Re lato r s in th is c a s e w a iv e d th a t r ig ht by failing to asser

t it in a more timely fashion. Acc ording ly , we f ind that the MDL

pretria l court’s orde r
rema nding this ca se to the Tra

vis County

district court was not a

n abuse of

discretion, and w e deny the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and the Motion for Eme rg ency Relief.

G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P ury ear and Waldrop: Opinion by J ustice Waldrop; Concurring Opinion by

J ustice Pury ear Filed: F ebrua

ry 27, 2006