The Amarillo Court of Appeals has granted a bar owner’s mandamus petition after the trial court denied its motion for leave to designate a responsible third party.
In re Main Street Conference, LLC (No. 07-25-00267-CV; October 6, 2025) arose from a 2022 drunk driving accident in Lubbock. After drinking at a Lubbock sports bar, a minor drove home on the wrong side of the highway and crashed into Plaintiff’s oncoming vehicle. Both drivers suffered serious injuries. In 2023 Plaintiff’s mother filed suit as “next friend” against owner of the bar, alleging negligence. Plaintiff filed suit against the driver and bar in 2024. The trial court consolidated the cases. Defendant learned in discovery that on the night of the accident Plaintiff attended a friend’s house party before going to the bar. In her deposition Plaintiff admitted that her friend’s mother had provided the minors with marijuana and alcohol. Defendant filed a motion for leave to designate the friend’s mother as a responsible third party, arguing that it didn’t have a duty to disclose her as an RPT because it did not have knowledge of the facts until Plaintiff’s deposition. Plaintiff argued that Defendant failed to timely disclosed because it didn’t move to designate until after expiration of limitations. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant sought mandamus relief.
In an opinion by Justice Yarbrough, the court of appeals conditionally granted the writ. Sec. 33.004(d), CPRC, prohibits a Defendant from disclosing a potential RPT after expiration of the applicable limitations period if Defendant “has failed to comply with its obligations” under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. TRCP 194.1 requires Defendant to provide, among other things, the contact information of anyone who may be designated as an RPT within 30 days after the filing of the first answer or general appearance (unless altered by the parties’ agreement or court order). Defendant argued that it didn’t have an obligation to disclose the RPT until it found out about her in Plaintiff’s deposition, while Plaintiff contended that Defendant had prior knowledge because of an investigative report attached to Plaintiff’s initial disclosures and that Defendant had ample time to conduct discovery before limitations ran (N.B. Plaintiff waited until the day before limitations expired to file her lawsuit.)
The court observed that under the circumstances, Plaintiff could not have been surprised by the designation, since she knew all about it when she filed suit. The record showed that once it received Plaintiff’s amended disclosure naming the friend’s mother, Defendant “diligently conducted its deposition the following month, then quickly moved to designate [the mother] as a responsible third party following the deposition.” Additionally, the court noted, Plaintiff waited until the last minute to file her lawsuit and limitations would have run out before Defendant should have made the RPT disclosure in any event. Plaintiff failed to show “any duty or obligation on the part of [Defendant] to engage in discovery to seek out potential responsible third parties…Therefore, until [Defendant] had actual knowledge of the facts allowing it to reasonably determine [the mother] was a potential responsible third party, it had no obligation to disclose her.” The court thus held that the trial court abused its discretion and directed it to vacate its ruling and grant Defendant’s motion.
