Opinion ID: 2833440
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: factual context and contentions

Text: On September 9, 2005, Kone, Inc. filed its motion before this panel.1 Tracking the language of Texas Rule of Judicial Administration 13.3(a)(2), Kone alleges that four cases pending against it in four different counties2 involve common issues of fact and the transfer of those cases for consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings would be for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and would promote the just and efficient conduct of the cases. See TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 13.3(a)(2). In each of the four cases, the operators of a hospital sued Kone for breach of an elevator/escalator maintenance contract. CHRISTUS Health (CHRISTUS), is joined by a different affiliate as a co-plaintiff in each lawsuit. Kone advises the disputes between it and CHRISTUS began when a physician was killed in a tragic accident while he was using an elevator maintained by Kone at one of CHRISTUS’s hospitals located in Houston, Texas. According to Kone, after litigation was brought by the physician’s family, CHRISTUS alleged it found defects in the maintenance program for the elevators. Hence, the four pending lawsuits were filed. Kone describes five common issues of fact and law which are involved in all of the lawsuits: (1) Was there a material breach of the maintenance contract? (2) Did Kone’s conduct harm the business reputation of the Plaintiff’s Hospitals? (3) Did Kone’s breach proximately cause a decrease in hospital census? (4) Can the Plaintiffs recover damages for loss of business reputation? (5) Can the Plaintiffs recover damages for loss of census? Premised on these “common issues,” Kone asserts that without transfer of the cases for pre-trial coordination: (1) both its witnesses and those of CHRISTUS’s will be subjected to four sets of depositions; and (2) “the parties” will bear the risk of inconsistent discovery rulings and decisions on motions for summary judgment. CHRISTUS opposes transfer contending Kone has not met its burden under Rule 13 and there will be no benefit in consolidating the lawsuits. It agrees the issues listed by Kone will generally exist in each case. However, CHRISTUS tells us the facts are “local” in each case because each hospital is a separate facility with its own elevators. Accordingly, a deposition must be taken of each fact witness to address that person’s knowledge of the maintenance of the different facilities. Further, expert witness depositions must inquire into the opinions about the contractual performance at each facility and any alleged harm caused by the claimed failure of Kone to perform its maintenance obligations.