492 S.W.3d 330
Tex. App.2014Background
- Fire aboard the Mexican-flagged crewing vessel Sebaan injured multiple Mexican offshore workers and killed one; plaintiffs sued several entities (Oceanografía, Otto Candies, Candies Mexican, OSA International) in Texas for negligence, unseaworthiness, and related claims.
- Relators (defendants) moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens in 2009; the trial court denied the motions on April 7, 2010, and entered written findings shortly thereafter.
- The case proceeded through extensive discovery for more than four years; relators filed a broad merits-focused summary judgment motion in 2013.
- One month before the initial trial group (April 2014), relators moved to reconsider dismissal, citing changed circumstances (difficulty obtaining discovery and some plaintiffs’ inability to secure U.S. visas). The trial court denied reconsideration and ordered that plaintiffs unable to attend future trials be dismissed.
- Relators sought mandamus relief in the court of appeals arguing the trial court abused its discretion by refusing forum non conveniens dismissal; real parties argued laches/waiver and that one relator (OSA Int’l) never moved to dismiss.
- The court of appeals denied mandamus, finding relators unreasonably delayed (four-year lapse), prejudiced plaintiffs who relied on years of litigation, and that OSA could not obtain relief because it hadn’t presented a dismissal motion in the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus should compel dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds | Trial court didn’t abuse discretion; plaintiffs relied on Texas forum and litigated for years | Relators: accident and witnesses are in Mexico; Texas is an inconvenient forum; dismissal warranted and appellate remedy inadequate | Denied — relators delayed unreasonably in pursuing dismissal and plaintiffs were prejudiced by four years of litigation; court did not reach substantive forum non conveniens merits |
| Whether laches/waiver bars mandamus | Plaintiffs: relators slept on rights, litigated merits, and caused prejudice and expense | Relators: changed circumstances (discovery, visa issues) justify late reconsideration | Held for plaintiffs — four-year delay and relators’ litigation conduct were unreasonable and prejudicial, so equitable relief is denied |
| Whether OSA International can seek mandamus when it did not move to dismiss in trial court | Plaintiffs: OSA never sought dismissal below; equity disfavors mandamus for issues not presented to trial court | OSA: sought relief in mandamus though record lacks a dismissal motion by OSA | Denied as to OSA — mandamus unavailable because OSA failed to present the issue to the trial court |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus prerequisites and abuse-of-discretion principles)
- In re Ensco Offshore Int’l Co., 311 S.W.3d 921 (Tex. 2010) (standard for reviewing forum non conveniens denials)
- In re Laibe Corp., 307 S.W.3d 314 (Tex. 2010) (laches and delay can bar mandamus relief)
- Perry Homes v. Cull, 258 S.W.3d 580 (Tex. 2008) (waiver by invoking litigation process; relevance to switching tactics on eve of alternative relief)
- In re Int’l Profit Assocs., Inc., 274 S.W.3d 672 (Tex. 2009) (equitable principles guide mandamus; ‘‘equity aids the diligent’’)