In Re ExxonMobil Production Co.
340 S.W.3d 852
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Encinitos Ranch and McGill Ranch, Ltd. filed a Brooks County suit in 2007 against Exxon Mobil Corp., ExxonMobil Production Co., and other defendants for property damage, trespass, and related contract breaches arising from oil development activities.
- Encinitos amended the Brooks County petition in 2008 to add claims arising from a 2008 fire allegedly caused by poorly maintained equipment, and to seek damages and injunctive relief resulting from contamination and other land harms.
- In 2010, Encinitos filed a Starr County suit against the same ExxonMobil entities seeking injunctive relief to remediate hydrocarbon and other contamination at facilities in Starr County, with allegations of nuisance, negligence, trespass, and contract breaches.
- ExxonMobil moved to abate the Starr County suit, arguing the Brooks County suit had dominant jurisdiction because it was first-filed and involved the same parties and claims.
- The trial court denied the abatement motion and ExxonMobil sought mandamus relief, arguing the Brooks County court should prevail to avoid multiplicity of suits and resource waste.
- The court below denied reconsideration, and ExxonMobil petitioned this court for mandamus relief claiming the Brooks County court abused its discretion by not abating the Starr County suit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dominance of Brooks County over Starr County | Encinitos argues Brooks County is dominant since it was first-filed and can be amended to include Starr County claims. | ExxonMobil contends Brooks County has dominant jurisdiction due to the same parties and subject matter. | Brooks County has dominant jurisdiction; Starr County suit should be abated. |
| Adequacy of remedy by appeal | ExxonMobil argues mandamus is needed because appeal would be inadequate to prevent resource waste. | ExxonMobil maintains adequate remedy by appeal is insufficient given potential irreparable waste. | Mandamus relief is warranted; adequate remedy by appeal is lacking. |
| Waiver/delay by relator | ExxonMobil maintains no waiver or laches since delay was reasonable. | Encinitos argues delay should bar mandamus. | Relief not barred by delay; no waiver shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wyatt v. Shaw Plumbing Co., 760 S.W.2d 245 (Tex. 1988) (dominant-jurisdiction framework for first-filed cases)
- Perry v. Del Rio, 66 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. 2001) (first-filed rule and avoidance of multiplicity of suits)
- In re Sims, 88 S.W.3d 297 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2002) (dominant-jurisdiction analysis in Texas appellate context)
- Abor v. Black, 695 S.W.2d 564 (Tex. 1985) (mandamus limits in Abor to conflicts of jurisdiction; flexible analysis later rejected by Prudential)
- Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (balancing test for adequacy of appellate remedy in mandamus context)
- Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257 (Tex. 2008) (mandamus relief to correct venue-related interference and waste of resources)
- Flores (Coastal Oil & Gas Corp. v. Flores), 908 S.W.2d 517 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1995) (consideration of multiple suits and resource-waste concerns in mandamus context)
- In re AutoNation, Inc., 228 S.W.3d 663 (Tex. 2007) (mandamus for forum-selection and resource-waste concerns)