Opinion ID: 2419866
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Ordinarily, this Court does not have jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals like this one. [4] But here, we have jurisdiction because the justices of the court of appeals disagree on a question of law material to the decision. [5] The issue of the court of appeals' jurisdiction in this case is more complex. Ordinarily, appeal does not immediately lie from a trial court order transferring venue. [6] But in section 15.003(c) the Legislature authorized any party aggrieved by a trial court's determination of a section 15.003(a) joinder issue to contest the decision by an interlocutory appeal: Any person seeking intervention or joinder, who is unable to independently establish proper venue, or a party opposing intervention or joinder of such a person may contest the decision of the trial court allowing or denying intervention or joinder by taking an interlocutory appeal.... [7] The question presented here is whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction under section 15.003(c), given that the order appealed was a venue transfer order following a motion to transfer venue. We agree with the court of appeals that it had jurisdiction. The court of appeals reasoned that because the venue transfer order necessarily rested on the trial court's determination of the propriety of joinder under section 15.003(a), it was appealable under section 15.003(c). [8] This functional approach to the availability of an interlocutory appeal under section 15.003(c) is in stark contrast with the holding of the Sixth Court of Appeals in Shubert v. J.C. Penney Co . [9] In Shubert, the court adopted a formalistic approach, holding that because the order before it was a venue ruling, it was not appealable, notwithstanding the trial court's decision to transfer venue based on the propriety of joinder of six plaintiffs under section 15.003(a). [10] We reject Shubert 's formalistic approach. Section 15.003(c) contemplates that either partyplaintiff or defendant may take an interlocutory appeal of a section 15.003(a) joinder decision. But the Shubert rule would allow defendants to dictate at the outset, simply by how they style their request for relief, whether a plaintiff could pursue an interlocutory appeal. We should not be so constrained by the form or caption of a pleading. As the court of appeals correctly noted, we look to the substance of a motion to determine the relief sought, not merely to its title. [11] When a trial court's order necessarily determines the propriety of a plaintiff's joinder under section 15.003(a), section 15.003(c) plainly allows for either party to contest th[at] decision ... by taking an interlocutory appeal. [12] Because the trial court's venue transfer order in this case was predicated on its decision about the propriety of the plaintiffs' joinder under section 15.003(a), the court of appeals had jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' appeal. [13] We disapprove Shubert to the extent that it conflicts with this opinion.