in Re Red Dot Building System, Inc.
504 S.W.3d 320
| Tex. | 2016Background
- Red Dot (Henderson County) contracted with Rigney (Hidalgo County principal place) to fabricate custom pre-engineered building components for a Brooks County school; dispute arose over performance and payment.
- Red Dot fabricated goods in Henderson County, invoiced Rigney for unpaid balance, and sued Rigney first in Henderson County for $149,000.
- Rigney subsequently sued Red Dot in Hidalgo County on the same contract asserting breach, DTPA, and accord and satisfaction; Rigney also sued the surety in Hidalgo.
- Hidalgo court denied Red Dot’s motions to transfer and to abate and issued a temporary injunction restraining prosecution of the Henderson County suit.
- Henderson court had earlier determined it had dominant jurisdiction and denied Rigney’s transfer/abatement plea.
- Red Dot sought mandamus relief to abate the Hidalgo action (or transfer it); the Supreme Court of Texas stayed trial-court proceedings and reviewed the mandamus petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hidalgo court should be ordered to transfer case to Henderson | Red Dot: transfer to Henderson or abate because Henderson first-filed and has dominant jurisdiction | Rigney: venue in Hidalgo proper; transfer unnecessary | Transfer denied — mandamus not available to force transfer because Red Dot did not challenge venue or show hardship |
| Whether Hidalgo court abused discretion by not abating second-filed suit | Red Dot: suits are inherently interrelated and Henderson was first-filed; Hidalgo should have abated | Rigney: argued exceptions (e.g., surety claims require Brooks venue) | Court held Hidalgo abused discretion by not abating; mandamus relief appropriate to require abatement |
| Whether venue was proper in both counties | Red Dot: Henderson proper because performance (fabrication) occurred there | Rigney: Hidalgo proper because transaction solicited/formed there and payments received there | Court held venue proper in both counties — both may be proper for different aspects; Henderson nonetheless first-filed dominant jurisdiction |
| Whether surety claim defeats dominant-jurisdiction rule | Rigney: statutory rule requires suit against surety in Brooks County, making Henderson improper | Red Dot: surety not indispensable to dispute between parties | Court: did not decide surety dismissal issue; Rigney failed to show surety was indispensable, so exception inapplicable |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., 492 S.W.3d 287 (Tex. 2016) (first-filed suit acquires dominant jurisdiction; mandamus available if second court refuses to abate)
- Gonzalez v. Reliant Energy, Inc., 159 S.W.3d 615 (Tex. 2005) (dominant-jurisdiction/abatement principles for interrelated suits)
- Wyatt v. Shaw Plumbing Co., 760 S.W.2d 245 (Tex. 1988) (second-filed court should abate when suits are inherently interrelated)
- V.D. Anderson Co. v. Young, 101 S.W.2d 798 (Tex. 1937) (exceptions to dominant jurisdiction when necessary parties cannot be joined)