Lawyers Worry About Bill Expanding Expedited Actions to $250,000
Under current law, when a case that has less than $100,000 at issue must go through a speedy procedural framework for expedited actions. SB 2342 would raise the cap to $250,000.
April 16, 2019 at 04:26 PM
3 minute read
Plaintiffs lawyers are concerned about legislation which might pass the Texas Senate Wednesday, warning it could subject complicated, high-dollar cases to speedy trial rules that limit discovery and trial time.
Senate Bill 2342, sponsored by Sen. Brandon Creighton, R-Beaumont, is highly likely to pass the Senate because it was placed on the local and uncontested calendar, which is generally used for noncontroversial bills that are approved without debate.
Under current law, cases worth $100,000 or less go through mandatory expedited action rules, but Senate Bill 2342 would raise the limit to $250,000.
“With an increase in value very often comes an increase in complexity, an increase in significance of the case and an increased need for discovery, trial time and things like that,” said Will Adams, lead trial attorney at Adams Law Firm in Katy and president of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, the biggest plaintiffs lawyer group in the state. “There are going to be lots and lots of cases where those rules won't help someone find justice, and the lawyer should be able to opt out.”
Creighton told members of the Senate State Affairs Committee during an April 4 public hearing that he wants SB 2342 to reduce the amount of time and money that it takes to resolve disputes in the legal system.
“These rules have done a great job of expediting the process for those particular cases,” Creighton said at the April 4 hearing. The committee passed a substitute version of the bill on April 8.
Lee Parsley, general counsel of Texans for Lawsuit Reform, testified that he supported the change.
SB 2342 also proposes increasing jurisdictional caps and juror numbers in some state courts:
- County courts-at-law jurisdiction would rise from $200,000 to $250,000.
- Justice court jurisdiction would increase from $10,000 to $20,000.
- Some counties now have county courts-at-law with special jurisdictions of greater than $250,000. The bill wouldn't change that, but would mandate that those high-dollar cases receive 12 rather than six jurors, unless the parties agreed on fewer.
- A county court-at-law hearing a family law matter before a jury would have to seat 12 rather than six jurors.
If the bill passes, it would head to the Texas House, and be sent through a committee for a public hearing. The House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee on April 3 approved SB 2342's companion bill, House Bill 3336, sponsored by Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano.
Read SB 2342 here.
|This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllEven With New Business Courts, Texas Is a Long Way from Taking Delaware's Corporate Law Mantle
5 minute read'Courts Do Get It Wrong': Legal Experts Discuss State-Law Certification Pros and Cons
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1What Are Forbidden Sexual Relations With Clients?
- 2AEDI Takeaways: Demystifying Hype, Changing Caselaw & Harvey’s CEO Talks State of Industry
- 3New England Law | Boston Announces New Dean
- 4Nordic Capital Plans to Acquire IP Management Solutions Provider Anaqua
- 5Criminalization of Homelessness Is Not the Solution
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250