596 S.W.3d 759
Tex.2020Background
- Fox River (limited partners of Metropolitan Water Co., L.P.) sued William Scott Carlson and related entities, alleging misappropriation of partnership assets, breach of the partnership agreement, fiduciary breaches, and seeking damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive and equitable remedies.
- The limited partnership agreement contains a venue-selection clause requiring disputes be litigated in Harris County.
- Carlson (defendants), domiciliaries of Washington County, moved to transfer venue to Harris County under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 15.020 (enforcing venue agreements for “major transactions”); Fox River opposed, invoking § 65.023(a) (mandating venue in a defendant’s county of domicile for suits that are "purely or primarily injunctive").
- The trial court granted Carlson’s transfer motion; the court of appeals affirmed based on In re Fisher, holding § 15.020 controls other mandatory venue rules.
- The Texas Supreme Court held § 15.020 governs only over other mandatory venue provisions found in Title 2, and that § 65.023(a) (a Title 3 statute) applies only if the suit is purely or primarily injunctive.
- Applying a common-sense review of the pleadings, the Court concluded injunctive relief was ancillary to Fox River’s primary goals (removal of the general partner and monetary recovery), so § 65.023(a) did not apply and the transfer to Harris County was proper; mandamus denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 15.020 is a "super-mandatory" venue statute that supersedes mandatory venue provisions outside Title 2 | § 15.020 should not override venue statutes in other titles (e.g., § 65.023(a)) | § 15.020 should control over all conflicting mandatory venue rules | § 15.020 controls only over other mandatory venue provisions within Title 2; it does not automatically override statutes in other titles |
| Whether § 65.023(a) applies because the suit is primarily for injunctive relief | The suit primarily seeks permanent injunctive relief (return of partnership assets; removal and enjoining Carlson) so § 65.023(a) mandates venue in defendants’ domicile | The injunctive requests are ancillary to statutory removal and monetary claims; damages and removal are primary | Injunctive relief is ancillary to primary claims (removal and damages); § 65.023(a) does not apply, so the contract venue governs |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Fisher, 433 S.W.3d 523 (Tex. 2014) (held § 15.020 controls over other mandatory venue provisions within Title 2)
- In re Continental Airlines, Inc., 988 S.W.2d 733 (Tex. 1998) (held § 65.023(a) applies only when relief sought is purely or primarily injunctive)
- Brown v. Gulf Television Co., 306 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1957) (formulated the test that § 65.023 applies only when injunction is primary relief)
- Ex parte Coffee, 328 S.W.2d 283 (Tex. 1959) (same principle that injunction statute governs only where injunctive relief is the primary remedy)
- Perryman v. Spartan Texas Six Capital Partners, Ltd., 546 S.W.3d 110 (Tex. 2018) (reiterated Fisher’s rule as confined to Title 2 conflicts)