in Re Oceanografia, S.A. De C v. Otto Candies LLC, Candies Mexican Investments, and Osa International, 494 S.W.3d 728

A Mexican-flagged vessel, the Seba’an, caught fire and sank off Mexico while ferrying Mexican workers; one died and others were injured. Most plaintiffs and all crew were Mexican residents; one plaintiff lives in Illinois.
Oceanografía S.A. de C.V. (Mexican) operated the vessel; Candies Mexican Investments (CMI, Mexican) owned it; Otto Candies LLC (Louisiana) controlled CMI; OSA International (Texas) was a later-formed marketing affiliate.
Plaintiffs (the decedent’s beneficiaries and 91 surviving workers) sued in Cameron County, Texas. Defendants moved to dismiss under Texas forum non conveniens (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §71.051) and Oceanografía filed a special appearance.
The trial court denied the special appearance and the motion to dismiss; Oceanografía appealed the jurisdictional ruling and lost; that appeal stayed trial commencement while discovery proceeded and limited depositions occurred.
After the appeal concluded, defendants sought reconsideration and mandamus; plaintiffs argued defendants’ delays and incurred litigation expenses made mandamus inappropriate. The trial court refused to dismiss for forum non conveniens; the Supreme Court of Texas granted mandamus relief and directed dismissal for forum non conveniens.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants’ post-appeal delay bars mandamus	Defendants slept on rights; delay prejudiced plaintiffs via litigation costs and lost trial prep	Delay was reasonable given jurisdictional appeal and changing circumstances; not culpable	Delay did not bar mandamus; defendants did not unduly delay and plaintiffs not prejudiced
Whether Mexico is an adequate alternative forum	Mexico unsafe/corrupt; plaintiffs would lack adequate remedies or safety	Defendants stipulated to Mexican jurisdiction; Mexican courts can provide remedies	Mexico is an adequate forum; anecdotal/speculative corruption evidence insufficient
Whether dismissal would cause substantial injustice or undue prejudice	Plaintiffs incurred expenses and would lose discovery and witnesses	Key witnesses and evidence are in Mexico; defendants would be substantially prejudiced if tried in Texas	Maintaining suit in Texas would work substantial injustice to defendants; factors favor dismissal
Whether dismissal would cause unreasonable duplication of litigation or leave defendants beyond Mexico’s jurisdiction	Some U.S. nonparty witnesses exist and laws may differ	Duplication can be managed; majority of witnesses and facts are Mexican-connected	No unreasonable duplication; dismissal appropriate

Rivercenter Associates v. Rivera, 858 S.W.2d 366 (Tex. 1993) (delay can bar relief when party unjustifiably sleeps on rights)
In re Int’l Profit Associates, Inc., 274 S.W.3d 672 (Tex. 2009) (delays not chargeable when not party’s fault)
In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 92 S.W.3d 517 (Tex. 2002) (delay in seeking forum non conveniens relief did not preclude review when no prejudice shown)
In re Pirelli Tire, LLC, 247 S.W.3d 670 (Tex. 2007) (availability and adequacy of alternative forum shown by defendant’s stipulation)
In re Ensco Offshore Int’l Co., 311 S.W.3d 921 (Tex. 2010) (a forum is inadequate only when remedies are essentially nonexistent)
In re Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, 459 S.W.3d 565 (Tex. 2015) (standards for assessing alternate forum adequacy and private/public interest balance)
Vinmar Trade Fin., Ltd. v. Util. Trailers de Mex., S.A. de C.V., 336 S.W.3d 664 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (courts reject generalized corruption claims absent concrete evidence)