In re License Plates of Texas, LLC d/b/a MyPlates.ComAppeal from 419th District Court of Travis County (memorandum opinion )

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-13-00671-CV In re License Plates of Texas, LLC d/b/a MyPlates.com ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator License Plates of Texas, LLC d/b/a MyPlates.com, which is currently the sole defendant in a lawsuit brought by one of its customers,1 has filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking relief from a district court order denying MyPlates.com leave to designate two state agencies2 as responsible third parties. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.004. MyPlates.com asserts that the district court abused its discretion in denying leave because its decision rests upon a misinterpretation and misapplication of subsection (d) of Civil Practice and Remedies Code 1 According to the record, MyPlates.com markets specialty Texas license plates under contract with the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles. The plaintiff customer, the real party in interest here, alleges that MyPlates.com sold him specialty plates having a personalized moniker identical to one formerly issued for a vehicle that had been reported stolen, causing him damages. Long story short, according to the customer, he discovered this unhappy coincidence during an otherwise uneventful morning drive to work, when he endured a spectacular, guns-drawn take-down, handcuffing, and false imprisonment by several Austin Police Department officers who mistakenly thought they were apprehending a car thief. 2 The Texas Department of Motor Vehicles and the Texas Department of Transportation, to whom MyPlates.com attributes issuance of license plates having a moniker associated with a stolen vehicle. 33.004,3 and that it lacks an adequate remedy at law, warranting our intervention by mandamus. Having carefully considered the mandamus record and the parties arguments, we are unpersuaded that MyPlates.com lacks an adequate remedy by ordinary appeal under the particular circumstances presented here. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-38 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we deny the petition. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). We express no opinion regarding the parties arguments concerning the proper construction and application of subsection (d). See id. R. 47.1. __________________________________________ Bob Pemberton, Justice Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Field Filed: November 27, 2013 3 See Act of May 25, 2011, 82d Leg., R.S., ch. 203, 2011 Tex. Gen. Laws 758, 760 (codified at Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.004(d)). 2