in Re: Fort Apache Energy, Inc., Allan P. Bloxsom, and Drilling Risk Management, Inc.
05-15-01159-CV
| Tex. App. | Nov 4, 2015Background
- Fort Apache (Relators) sued in Kendall County over unpaid drilling/completion costs and sought foreclosure under Joint Operating Agreement related to the Williams #1 Well in Louisiana.
- Huddleston (real party in interest) filed a second suit in Dallas County asserting related claims and defenses, including challenges to the Kendall County Payment Agreement.
- Kendall County court twice denied Huddleston’s motions to transfer venue and to abate; Fort Apache moved to abate the Dallas action in favor of the first-filed Kendall action.
- The Dallas court denied Relators’ motion to abate and set the Dallas case for trial before the Kendall County case.
- Relators petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Dallas court to vacate its denial and abate the Dallas proceeding, arguing dominant jurisdiction belongs to Kendall County and that appeal would be inadequate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Dallas suit should be abated in favor of the earlier Kendall suit | Fort Apache: both suits arise from the same contracts/transactions and Kendall (first-filed) has dominant jurisdiction; abatement is proper | Huddleston: Kendall suit concerns only the Payment ("Napkin") Agreement and venue/dominant-jurisdiction analysis favors Dallas for many contracts | Court granted mandamus relief: Dallas court abused discretion by denying abatement where suits are intertwined and Kendall has dominant jurisdiction |
| Whether denial of abatement is reviewable by appeal (adequate remedy) | Fort Apache: appeal is inadequate because trial in Dallas before Kendall would waste resources and could moot Fort Apache’s venue choice | Huddleston: appeal suffices; differences in venue and issues mean mandamus not warranted | Court: mandamus appropriate where second-filed court sets earlier trial date and interferes with dominant jurisdiction; appeal inadequate under Prudential framework |
Key Cases Cited
- Curtis v. Gibbs, 511 S.W.2d 263 (Tex. 1974) (first-filed suit acquires dominant jurisdiction)
- GeoChem Tech Corp. v. Verseckes, 962 S.W.2d 541 (Tex. 1998) (venue and dominant jurisdiction are distinct concepts)
- Gonzalez v. Reliant Energy, Inc., 159 S.W.3d 615 (Tex. 2005) (plaintiff’s privilege to choose a proper forum)
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus relief requires flexible, fact-specific analysis)
- In re Puig, 351 S.W.3d 301 (Tex. 2011) (mandamus appropriate when one court interferes with another’s dominant jurisdiction)
- Perry v. Del Rio, 66 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. 2001) (second-filed suit with earlier trial date can conflict with dominant jurisdiction)
- Team Rocket, 256 S.W.3d 257 (Tex. 2008) (mandamus can prevent waste of time/resources when enforcing prior venue rulings)
- Wyatt v. Shaw Plumbing Co., 760 S.W.2d 245 (Tex. 1988) (forum selection and venue principles)
- In re ExxonMobil Production Co., 340 S.W.3d 852 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011) (denial of abatement can warrant mandamus to avoid wasteful proceedings)