571 S.W.3d 384
Tex. App.2019Background
- TCU filed a declaratory-judgment action in Tarrant County seeking (1) a declaration that JPS Physician Group (JPSPG) doctors were independent contractors obligated to indemnify TCU, and (2) that Listenbee’s claims are health-care-liability claims under the TMLA (filed Jan. 30–31, 2018).
- Listenbee (former TCU player) filed a personal-injury suit in Dallas County against TCU and the Big 12 on Jan. 31, 2018 asserting medical negligence, negligent hiring, and related torts; he did not sue JPSPG or its physicians.
- TCU and the Big 12 moved to abate the Dallas County suit under the first-filed rule, arguing the Tarrant County declaratory action is interrelated and therefore has dominant jurisdiction.
- The Dallas trial court denied the pleas in abatement; TCU sought mandamus in the Dallas Court of Appeals challenging that denial.
- The Court of Appeals held the two suits are inherently interrelated (same operative facts about Listenbee’s injury and treatment) and that the first-filed rule therefore gave dominant jurisdiction to Tarrant County absent a qualifying exception.
- The court rejected Listenbee’s reliance on Abor and In re Houston Specialty Ins. Co. as controlling here, explaining In re J.B. Hunt governs dominant-jurisdiction analysis in second-filed pleas in abatement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Tarrant and Dallas suits are inherently interrelated | Listenbee: suits are different (TCU’s contract/ declaratory claims vs. his tort claims) so not interrelated | TCU: both derive from same September 2015 injury, treatment, and decisions by JPSPG physicians; facts overlap | Court: interrelated — same core facts and logical relationship exist |
| Whether the first-filed rule gives Tarrant County dominant jurisdiction | Listenbee: TCU’s declaratory action is improper attempt to avoid Abor (declaratory relief for non-liability in tort) so rule shouldn’t apply | TCU: first-filed suit should have dominant jurisdiction; race to courthouse is fair | Court: first-filed rule applies; Tarrant County has dominant jurisdiction |
| Whether Abor or In re Houston Specialty negates applying the first-filed rule here | Listenbee: Abor bars declaratory non-liability actions; Houston Specialty reaffirmed that rule | TCU: In re J.B. Hunt controls first-filed/dominant jurisdiction analysis; Houston Specialty addressed a different procedural posture | Court: Abor/Houston Specialty do not alter analysis of a second-filed plea in abatement; In re J.B. Hunt governs |
| Whether inequitable-conduct or estoppel exception applies to defeat first-filed rule | Listenbee: TCU engaged in inequitable conduct (frivolous suit) and thus should be estopped | TCU: no evidence TCU induced delay or prevented suit; mere race to courthouse is not inequitable | Court: no evidence of prejudice or fraudulent conduct; inequitable-conduct exception not met |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., 492 S.W.3d 287 (Tex. 2016) (frames two-step dominant-jurisdiction inquiry and plea-in-abatement principles)
- Curtis v. Gibbs, 511 S.W.2d 263 (Tex. 1974) (first-filed court acquires dominant jurisdiction principle)
- Perry v. Del Rio, 66 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. 2001) (exceptions to first-filed rule and justifications explained)
- Abor v. Black, 695 S.W.2d 564 (Tex. 1985) (prohibition on seeking declaratory relief to declare nonliability in tort)
- In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt. L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379 (Tex. 2005) (standard for clear abuse of discretion in mandamus review)
- In re Lee, 411 S.W.3d 445 (Tex. 2013) (mandamus standards requiring no adequate appellate remedy)
- In re Puig, 351 S.W.3d 301 (Tex. 2011) (plea in abatement is proper method to invoke another court’s dominant jurisdiction)
- Miles v. Ford Motor Co., 914 S.W.2d 135 (Tex. 1996) (abatement promotes comity and orderly adjudication)
- Johnson v. Avery, 414 S.W.2d 441 (Tex. 1966) (examples of inequitable conduct that can defeat first-filed rule)