UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

WENDY CROOK, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Civil Action No. 3:23-CV-1096-X § ROBERTO MEZA-MUROS, et al., § § Defendant. § §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant A&L Construction & Ready Mix’s (A&L) motions for leave to designate responsible third parties. (Docs. 30, 31). No response was filed. After reviewing the motion and applicable law, the Court GRANTS A&L’s motions. Accordingly, Albino Hernandez and 4 Brothers Rail Maintenance are designated as responsible third parties under Section 33.011(6) of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code. I. Factual Background This suit arises out of a motor vehicle collision occurring within Ellis County, Texas, on September 14, 2021.1 Plaintiff Wendy Crook alleges she was operating her vehicle southwest on North Kaufman when Defendant Roberto Meza-Muros, driving an 18-wheeler, failed to yield, turned left, and collided head-first into Crook resulting

1 Doc. 1-5 at 3. 1 in injuries.2 Crook brought suit in state court against Meza-Muros, N and N Transport Express Inc. (Meza-Muros’s employer), A&L’s Construction & Ready Mix (co-owner of Meza-Muros’s vehicle), and CDE Quality Services LLC (co-owner of

Meza-Muros’s). N & N Transport Express Inc removed this case to this Court,3 and A&L filed a motion for leave to designate responsible third parties and a motion to designate responsible third parties.4 II. Analysis As an initial matter, A&L denies any underlying liability to Crook.5 As a result, A&L moves to designate Albino Hernandez and 4 Brothers Rail Maintenance

as responsible third parties, asserting that A&L has never met Meza-Muros, and, alternatively, A&L entrusted the driver’s trailer to Hernadnez and 4 Brothers Rail Maintenance, not Meza-Muros. No response was filed. The Court obliges A&L’s request.6 Under Texas law, “[a] defendant may seek to designate a person as a responsible third party.”7 That designation, in turn, “obligates the trier of fact to assign a percentage of responsibility to each . . . defendant . . . and [responsible third

2 Id. 3 Doc. 1. 4 Docs. 30, 31. 5 Doc. 31 at 2. 6 Id. 7 TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 33.004(a). 2 party] with respect to each cause of action alleged.”8 Federal courts in Texas allow parties to designate responsible third parties in diversity cases.9 The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure’s text places the burden of proof as to why a court shouldn’t allow

parties to designate a third party on the objecting party.10 For instance, the Rules’ two-part framework states that a court “shall grant” a defendant’s motion to designate a responsible third party “unless the objecting party establishes: (1) the defendant did not plead sufficient facts concerning the alleged responsibility of the person . . . ; and (2) after having been granted leave to replead, the defendant failed to plead sufficient facts concerning the alleged responsibility of the person.”11

This case’s analysis is simple. As stated, the Rule’s text states that “[a] court shall grant leave to designate the named person as a responsible third party unless another party files an objection.”12 No objection was filed. Thus, the Court grants A&L’s motion. III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS A&L’s Motion to Designate Third Party. (Docs. 30, 31). Accordingly, Albino Hernandez and 4 Brothers Rail

Maintenance are designated as responsible third parties under Section 33.011(6) of

8 Estate of Pruitt v. Asphalt Zipper, Inc., No. 21-50717,

, at *3 (5th Cir. July 20, 2022). 9 Davis v. Dall. Cnty., No. 3:07-CV-0318-D,

, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2007) (Fitzwater, J.). 10 See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 33.004(g). 11 Id. § 33.004(g)(1)–(2). 12 Id. § 33.004(f). 3 the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code. IT ISSO ORDERED this 31th day of May, 2024.

BRANTLEY STARR UNITED ST S DISTRICT JUDGE