Opinion issued April 26, 2013
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-13-00122-CV
———————————
IN RE DCP MIDSTREAM, LP, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
DISSENTING MEMORANDUM OPINION
In my opinion, intervenors showed only that they were proper parties―a
joinder issue under Rule of Civil Procedure 40―and not that they “could have
brought any part of [the plaintiffs’] claim[s];” consequently, the trial court abused
its discretion when it denied the motion to strike the intervention because the
intervenors failed to satisfy Rule of Civil Procedure 60’s “paramount” requirement
of a justiciable interest. See In re Union Carbide Corp., 273 S.W.3d 152, 155 (Tex.
2008) (“To constitute a justiciable interest, ‘[t]he intervenor’s interest must be such
that if the original action had never been commenced, and he had first brought it as
the sole plaintiff, he would have been entitled to recover in his own name to the
extent at least of a part of the relief sought’ in the original suit.”) (quoting King v.
Olds, 12 S.W. 65, 65 (Tex. 1888)). Because this is error for which relator does not
have an adequate remedy by appeal, I respectfully dissent. See id. at 156−57.
Harvey Brown
Justice
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Brown.
Justice Brown, dissenting.
2