in Re Shelby Longoria
14-15-00917-CV
Tex. App.Nov 24, 2015Background
- This is a response by the Executor (James Thomas Dorsey) to Shelby Longoria’s petition for mandamus seeking dismissal of the Executor’s counterclaims under the common-law doctrine of forum non conveniens.
- All parties (Relator Shelby, Executor, and two third-party defendants) are Texas residents; the decedent Dorothy Longoria lived in Texas for the last 25 years and died in Harris County; her estate is administered in a Harris County probate court.
- Executor’s counterclaims (filed as responses to Shelby’s will contest) allege breaches of fiduciary duty by Shelby in managing Dorothy’s property and accounts (including large withdrawals from Mexican bank accounts); claims are pleaded under Texas law and seek money damages/constructive relief.
- Shelby previously moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds; that motion was denied by the probate court, a mandamus petition to the appellate court was denied, and a subsequent mandamus petition to the Texas Supreme Court was denied.
- Shelby later filed a renewed motion to dismiss (the “Motion Re-Urging Dismissal”) relying largely on prior materials and a separate suit the Executor filed in Mexico City; the trial court denied the renewed motion and Shelby sought mandamus again.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Executor) | Defendant's Argument (Shelby) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying forum non conveniens dismissal | Dorsey: forum non conveniens dismissal is improper because (1) plaintiff/executor and nearly all parties/witnesses are Texas residents, (2) claims are based on Texas law and arose in Texas, (3) Shelby failed to identify a specific adequate Mexican forum or prove Mexican courts could provide the same remedies, and (4) Shelby offered no new evidence at the re-urging hearing | Shelby: Mexico (unnamed state) is a more appropriate forum given connections to Mexican accounts, a pending Mexico City suit targeting the Afirme Trust, and some Mexican witnesses; therefore trial court must dismiss | Trial court did not abuse its discretion; substantial deference owed to plaintiff’s home-forum choice, Shelby failed to meet heavy burden to show a specific, available, adequate alternative forum and that private/public interest factors strongly favor dismissal |
| Whether an unnamed forum in Mexico is an adequate and available alternative | Dorsey: Shelby did not specify a state, and the Mexico City suit is materially different; expert evidence shows Mexican law does not recognize the informal fiduciary claims at issue and Tamaulipas would lack jurisdiction or impose an unwaivable repose bar | Shelby: Mexico (Mexico City or Tamaulipas) could adjudicate the disputes and the Executor has sued in Mexico City, showing availability | Shelby failed to identify a specific forum; the record contained expert testimony that Mexican law does not provide the same remedies and that jurisdiction/time-bar issues exist; alternative forums were not proven adequate/available |
| Whether the private-interest Gulf Oil factors favor dismissal | Dorsey: factors (access to evidence, compulsory process, cost, enforceability, security/travel issues) favor Texas or are neutral; most witnesses and documents are in Texas; judgments here are fully enforceable | Shelby: practical convenience favors Mexico because relevant accounts, trust, and some witnesses are tied to Mexico | Trial court reasonably found private-interest factors favored maintaining suit in Texas (or were neutral); Shelby did not carry burden to show these factors strongly favor Mexico |
| Whether public-interest factors favor dismissal | Dorsey: Texas has strongest interest (decedent, parties, probate administration in Texas) and public policy disfavors piecemeal litigation; applying Texas law is proper | Shelby: Mexico has greater connection to certain property and trust issues | Public-interest factors favor Texas; probate/estate consolidation and local interest weigh strongly against dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (U.S. 2007) (defendant bears heavy burden and courts defer to plaintiff’s choice of home forum)
- Quixtar, Inc. v. Signature Mngmt. Team LLC, 315 S.W.3d 28 (Tex. 2010) (Texas follows federal forum non conveniens analysis and emphasizes deference to plaintiff's chosen forum)
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1947) (sets out private and public interest factors for forum non conveniens analysis)
- Koster v. (American) Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518 (U.S. 1947) (home-forum choice entitled to strong deference; dismissal only in exceptional circumstances)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1981) (clarifies deference to plaintiff’s forum and role of public/private interest factors)
- In re ENSCO Offshore Int'l Co., 311 S.W.3d 921 (Tex. 2010) (distinguishes statutory forum non conveniens from common-law standard and requires a strong showing for dismissal)