In Re BPZ Resources, Inc.
359 S.W.3d 866
Tex. App.2012Background
- On Oct. 21, 2011, BPZ Resources, Inc. and BPZ Energy, Inc. filed a mandamus petition seeking to compel the Harris County court to dismiss under forum non conveniens.
- The Supe explosion occurred off Peru in 2008; CX-11 platform was Peruvian-owned and BPZ Peru operated in Peru; Peruvian crewmembers and families sued in Harris County in 2008.
- Relators concede Peru is an available alternate forum if they submit to Peruvian jurisdiction and a dismissal is conditioned on Peru accepting jurisdiction with Texas as a fallback.
- The trial court denied the motion to dismiss; mandamus relief was sought to correct the ruling under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §71.051 and related rules.
- The court focused on six statutory factors to determine if forum non conveniens should apply, weighing Peru as the proper forum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Peru is an adequate alternate forum | Relators argue Peru provides an adequate remedy via Lauritzen-Rhoditis framework. | Real parties contend Peru is inadequate due to corruption, unrest, and procedural limitations. | Peru is adequate; not refused as forum non conveniens basis. |
| Whether the stay/dismissal under forum non conveniens is proper | All factors favor Peru as proper forum; Texas not appropriate. | Texas interests and witness accessibility favor Texas forum. | The court should dismiss under forum non conveniens contingent on Peru accepting jurisdiction. |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying dismissal | The six factors require dismissal; no abuse given. | Denial was appropriate absent Peru as adequate forum and balancing factors. | Abuse of discretion; mandamus relief granted. |
| Whether dismissal should be conditioned on Peruvian jurisdiction with Texas as fallback | Dismissal contingent on Peru accepting jurisdiction; Texas as fallback if Peru declines. | No conditional approach or lacks procedural basis. | Conditioned dismissal appropriate; writ will issue if court does not comply. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re General Elec. Co., 271 S.W.3d 681 (Tex.2008) (abuse-of-discretion review; forum non conveniens factors)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981) (adequacy of foreign forum; strong deference to forum choice)
- In re Ensco Offshore Int'l Co., 311 S.W.3d 921 (Tex.2010) (comparative remedy analysis not used unless no remedy at all)
- Torres v. Southern Peru Copper Corp., 965 F. Supp. 899 (S.D. Tex.1996) (conditional dismissal contingent on foreign forum jurisdiction)
- Gen. Elec. Co. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 330 U.S. 501 (1947) (unavailability of evidence and witnesses; forum considerations)