in Re CVR Energy, INC. and CVR Refining, LP, 01-15-00715-CV

Background

Plaintiffs Donald and Jennifer Collier (Kansas) and Dale and Wendy Niemeyer (Oklahoma) were severely injured in a July 28, 2014 refinery explosion at a Coffeyville, Kansas plant owned by a CVR-related entity.
The plaintiffs sued in Fort Bend County, Texas; defendants (CVR entities) moved to dismiss under Texas forum non conveniens statute, arguing Kansas was the proper forum because the accident, many witnesses, and treatment providers are in Kansas/Oklahoma.
Plaintiffs contend the central contested issue is whether corporate "intellectual/operational" decisions that caused the accident were made in Sugar Land, Texas under a Services Agreement by CVR Energy, Inc., whose executive offices are in Sugar Land.
Key documentary and testimonial evidence about corporate decision‑making (including officer testimony) is in Sugar Land; the Services Agreement delegates operational decisionmaking to the Texas headquarters.
The trial court held an evidentiary hearing, focused on whether the alleged negligence occurred in Texas (Sugar Land) versus at the Kansas plant, and denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss; plaintiffs opposed mandamus relief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a forum non conveniens motion (mandamus standard)	The contested negligence occurred in Sugar Land (corporate decisions); key witnesses/docs are in Texas; Texas has strong public/private interests — keep case in Fort Bend County	Kansas is the appropriate and more convenient forum because the accident, most witnesses, and treatment records are in Kansas/Oklahoma and defendants are amenable to process there	Trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion; denial of motion to dismiss was within discretion because the court reasonably focused on where the allegedly negligent conduct occurred (Texas)
Whether an adequate alternative forum exists / would provide adequate remedy	N/A (plaintiffs argue Texas is proper forum)	Kansas is an available and adequate forum; defendants are amenable to process there	Kansas is available and could be adequate, but adequacy does not control because the disputed negligent acts may have occurred in Texas
Whether Texas or Kansas law governs (choice of law concern)	Texas law applies under most‑significant‑relationship test because the conduct causing the injury occurred in Texas; even if Kansas law applied, remedies/law are similar	Kansas law should apply because accident and injuries occurred there	Court treated choice‑of‑law as a non‑problem: Texas and Kansas negligence law are similar and the primary dispute is location of negligent acts, not the fact of injury
Whether maintenance in Texas would cause substantial injustice (subpoena power, witnesses, evidence)	Relevant decisionmakers and documents are in Sugar Land; compulsory process and access to proof favor Texas for the contested issue	Most on‑site witnesses, emergency personnel, treating providers, and the physical pump are in Kansas/Oklahoma — making Kansas more convenient	Court reasonably concluded substantial injustice to defendants was not shown because the key contested evidence concerns Texas‑based corporate decisions

Key Cases Cited

In re Mantle Oil & Gas, LLC, 426 S.W.3d 182 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) (forum non conveniens: focus on where negligent acts occurred; less deference to nonresident plaintiff's forum choice)
In re Omega Protein, Inc., 288 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (headquarters presence alone insufficient; but negligence at corporate HQ can weigh heavily in keeping case)
In re Pirelli Tire, L.L.C., 247 S.W.3d 670 (Tex. 2007) (mandamus review for forum non conveniens dismissal is for abuse of discretion)
In re Ensco Offshore Int’l Co., 311 S.W.3d 921 (Tex. 2010) (consideration of §71.051(b) factors and public/private interests)
In re BPZ Res., Inc., 359 S.W.3d 866 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (analysis on extent injury resulted from acts/omissions in Texas relevant to forum non conveniens)