in Re Clear Diamond, Inc., 13-21-00068-CV

Background

On Jan. 15, 2019, a collision in Crockett County between a Clear Diamond tanker (driven by Kyle Wartenbee) and a tractor-trailer driven by Flavio Zapata resulted in Flavio’s death and significant property damage.
Clear Diamond had contracted Lonesome Dove Logistics to haul flammable cargo and later sued (Feb. 5, 2019) in McCulloch County against members of the Zapata family and Lonesome Dove for property damage and indemnity.
Rebeca Zapata (widow/next friend) sued Clear Diamond and Tapia in Hidalgo County (Feb. 12, 2019) for wrongful death and later amended to add the minor children and Clear Blue (insurer), alleging negligence by Clear Diamond/Wartenbee.
Clear Diamond filed a motion to transfer venue to McCulloch County and a plea in abatement in Hidalgo County, arguing the McCulloch suit was first-filed and acquired dominant jurisdiction; the plea relied on the McCulloch petition and later-filed declarations and crash reports.
The Hidalgo trial court denied the plea in abatement and the transfer motion; Clear Diamond petitioned this Court for mandamus relief to compel abatement.
The Court of Appeals held the Hidalgo suit was inherently interrelated to the earlier McCulloch suit, found venue proper in McCulloch County, and conditionally granted mandamus directing the trial court to vacate its denial and grant abatement.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Zapata)	Defendant's Argument (Clear Diamond)	Held
Whether Hidalgo Court must abate under the dominant-jurisdiction/first-filed rule	Hidalgo contends the amended pleadings remove overlap and dominant-jurisdiction exceptions apply; suits involve different parties/claims (minors)	Clear Diamond argues the McCulloch suit was filed first, the cases arise from the same collision, and the first-filed court has dominant jurisdiction	Court held abatement required: the suits are inherently interrelated and McCulloch (first-filed) has dominant jurisdiction
Whether Clear Diamond presented sufficient evidence to support its plea in abatement	Zapata argued Clear Diamond offered no admissible evidence at the plea hearing and that the plea was unverified/moot after amendments	Clear Diamond relied on its McCulloch petition, crash report, supplement exhibits, and a post-hearing declaration that factual statements were true	Court held Clear Diamond met its evidentiary burden; record supported the factual basis for abatement
Whether the two suits are inherently interrelated (compulsory counterclaim/logical relationship)	Zapata argued minors’ wrongful-death claims are independent and could not have been compulsory counterclaims in McCulloch County	Clear Diamond argued both suits arise from the same transaction/occurrence and involve overlapping facts and parties, making separate trials duplicative	Court held the logical-relationship/compulsory-counterclaim analysis favored interrelationship — both suits arise from the same collision and could be handled in one action
Whether mandamus is an available remedy	Zapata urged that denial was within trial court discretion and an appeal suffices	Clear Diamond argued mandamus is appropriate for plea in abatement under dominant-jurisdiction principles because appeal is inadequate	Court held mandamus appropriate and that Clear Diamond lacked an adequate appellate remedy; granted relief conditionally

Key Cases Cited

In re J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., 492 S.W.3d 287 (Tex. 2016) (first-filed/dominant-jurisdiction rule and when abatement is required)
In re Red Dot Bldg. Sys., Inc., 504 S.W.3d 320 (Tex. App.) (application of dominant jurisdiction to inherently interrelated suits)
Wyatt v. Shaw Plumbing Co., 760 S.W.2d 245 (Tex. 1988) (framework for inherent interrelation, compulsory counterclaims, and exceptions to first-filed rule)
Perry v. Del Rio, 66 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. 2001) (policy reasons for abatement: judicial economy, comity, risk of conflicting judgments)
In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708 (Tex. 2016) (mandamus standard — when mandamus relief is appropriate)