Much ado is being made about the recent changes to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, especially the new dismissal rule (TRCP 91a, for more information see https://texappblog.com/2013/05/07/trcp-91a-a-state-court-12b6/) and the expedited action rule (TRCP 169). But one often overlooked procedural rule implemented with the dismissal and expedited action rules has some attorneys wondering why their discovery is not being answered.
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 47, entitled (innocuously enough) “Claims for Relief,” was revised as part of an implementation package to allow courts to triage cases into expedited and non-expedited actions:
Rule 47. Claims for Relief
An original pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original petition, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall contain:
(a) a short statement of the cause of action sufficient to give fair notice of the claim involved;
(b) a statement that the damages sought are within the jurisdictional limits of the court;
(c) except in suits governed by the Family Code, a statement that the party seeks:
(1) only monetary relief of $100,000 or less, including damages of any kind, penalties, costs, expenses, pre-judgment interest, and attorney fees; or
(2) monetary relief of $100,000 or less and non-monetary relief; or
(3) monetary relief over $100,000 but not more than $200,000; or
(4) monetary relief over $200,000 but not more than $1,000,000; or
(5) monetary relief over $1,000,000; and
(d) a demand for judgment for all the other relief to which the party deems himself entitled.
With the exception of subsection (c)—the procedural rule for implementing the expedited action rule—this should all sound very familiar to Texas practitioners. However, it is the text after the rule that carries the “bite”:
. . . A party that fails to comply with (c) may not conduct discovery until the party’s pleading is amended to comply.
You read that correctly. No discovery until your pleading (filed after March 1, 2013) is brought into compliance with the new rule. More than a few attorneys have been confounded in recent months by the objection “Discovery is not permitted at this time in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.” Thankfully, you will not be among them.
The full text of the rule can be found here: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/miscdocket/13/13902200.pdf
My comment on the rule itself: it’s kind of hard to decide whether the case value exceeds 100k in Texas since in Texas (unlike FL and other states) an attorney cannot get insurance coverage limits information before filing suit unless the insurance company gratuitously provides it.
Pingback: Texas Supreme Court Decides Email is Here to Stay, Amends Rules of Civil Procedure Accordingly | TexAppBlog.com
Whether or not insurance is involved doesn’t determine the value of the case ultimately though does it? It only determines ability to recover the value.
Reblogged this on Tran Law Firm LLP and commented:
This is a good reminder for all Texas lawyers that practice in state court.
What if an attorney fails to comply with TRCP 47, and serves discovery, the other side responds and fails to object. Is the previously taken discovery void?
The Rule does not appear to invalidate discovery erroneously responded to while the pleading was non-compliant.
What if you are in violation of this rule, but the Defendant fails to object. Is the discovery valid?
It doesn’t appear that the Rule contemplates waiver as a defense. If the pleading is non-compliant, “no discovery shall be be permitted.”
Pingback: TRCP 169: Texas Creates a Litigation Fast Lane, But Makes the Lane Very Narrow | TexAppBlog.com