in Re Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, 542 S.W.3d 703

Background

On Oct. 8, 2015 an explosion and fire at Compressor Station 62 in Gibson, Louisiana, during maintenance killed three workers and injured others; PHMSA and Transco investigations blamed insufficient vapor purge procedures.
Dozens of wrongful-death and personal-injury suits were filed in Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana; a separate suit by multiple plaintiffs was filed in Harris County, Texas.
Defendants (Transco/Williams entities, Furmanite, Danos, ES&H, Black Marlin) moved to dismiss under Texas forum non conveniens statute, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §71.051.
Trial court initially granted the motions, then vacated that order, held a status conference about plaintiff Paula Rhodes’s residency, and ultimately denied the motions as to all plaintiffs except one (Alisa Evans).
Defendants filed a mandamus petition in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals asking the trial court be compelled to grant the forum non conveniens motions. The appellate court: refused mandamus as to Rhodes (found she was a Texas legal resident despite a temporary Illinois absence) but conditionally granted mandamus for the remaining nonresident plaintiffs, ordering dismissal of their claims to be entered on appropriate terms.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court could consider Paula Rhodes’s own residency (vs. only decedent’s) under §71.051(e)	Rhodes: statute bars dismissal if plaintiff is a Texas resident, so her residency matters	Defendants: Rhodes is a derivative claimant so only decedent’s residency should control	Court: Statute’s disjunctive wording means either the plaintiff or a derivative claimant being a Texas legal resident bars dismissal; trial court properly considered Rhodes’s residency
Whether Rhodes was a Texas "legal resident" for §71.051 purposes	Rhodes: testified intent to return to Texas, maintained TX driver’s license and leased TX apartment before returning — continuity of Texas residency since 2012	Defendants: Rhodes lived in Illinois when the incident and motions occurred; moved to Texas after motions were filed	Court: Evidence supported implied finding Rhodes maintained Texas residency despite temporary Illinois absence; mandamus denied as to her
Whether trial court abused discretion by vacating its initial dismissal before counsel answered court queries	Defendants: vacatur was arbitrary because court acted before parties responded	Plaintiffs: court may rely on its own record/research to reconsider	Court: No clear abuse — court may ascertain answers from the record; issue overrode by Rhodes ruling
Whether the nonresident plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed under §71.051(b) (six-factor test)	Nonresidents: key liability witnesses in Texas; some defendants have Texas choice-of-venue/law provisions; plaintiffs submitted to Texas jurisdiction	Defendants: majority of witnesses, evidence, and the incident location are in Louisiana; alternative forum exists and is adequate; indemnity claims and consolidated Louisiana litigation favor Louisiana	Court: Factors 1,2,4,6 favored dismissal; after weighing factors 3 and 5 (compulsory process, convenience, private/public interests, governing law), the balance strongly favored dismissal for all nonresident plaintiffs — mandamus conditionally granted to require dismissal (on appropriate terms)

Key Cases Cited

In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. 2011) (mandamus standard: clear abuse of discretion and no adequate appellate remedy)
In re Gen. Elec. Co., 271 S.W.3d 681 (Tex. 2008) (forum non conveniens factors and burdens when most evidence/witnesses are remote)
In re ENSCO Offshore Int’l Co., 311 S.W.3d 921 (Tex. 2010) (interpretation of §71.051 and dismissal where indemnity claims and compulsory process issues favor alternate forum)
In re Pirelli Tire, L.L.C., 247 S.W.3d 670 (Tex. 2007) (identifying key-witness/critical-evidence considerations in forum non conveniens analysis)
Hughes Wood Prods., Inc. v. Wagner, 18 S.W.3d 202 (Tex. 2000) (most-significant-relationship test for choice-of-law in torts)