495 S.W.3d 494
Tex. App.2016Background
- PRA sued the Dauajares in Fort Bend County, Texas for breach of a brokerage agreement, quantum meruit, and fraud; the agreement was negotiated and expected to be performed in Mexico.
- The Dauajares moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds; the trial court initially denied dismissal, and the Dauajares sought mandamus relief.
- This court granted mandamus and ordered the trial court to dismiss the case for forum non conveniens; PRA did not request a return-jurisdiction clause from this court.
- On remand the Dauajares’ proposed dismissal order contained no return-jurisdiction provision; PRA asked the trial court to retain limited jurisdiction to allow reinstatement in Texas if the Mexican forum proved unavailable.
- The trial court denied PRA’s request and dismissed the case without a return-jurisdiction provision; PRA appealed, arguing the omission was an abuse of discretion per se.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court must include a return-jurisdiction provision when dismissing for forum non conveniens | PRA: omission is per se abuse of discretion; plaintiffs need a mechanism to reinstate if foreign forum becomes unavailable | Dauajares: return clause not required; protections unnecessary absent evidence defendants will obstruct foreign proceedings | Court: No per se rule; inclusion of return-jurisdiction provisions is within trial court discretion |
| Standard to govern conditions on dismissal | PRA: adopt Fifth Circuit bright-line rule requiring return clause | Dauajares: follow a discretionary approach; no automatic requirement | Court: adopts discretionary approach aligned with Ninth and Tenth Circuits; conditions may be imposed if justified |
| Whether trial court abused discretion here given PRA’s later submission that Mexican court declined jurisdiction | PRA: later events (Mexican dismissal) show need for return clause; ask to vacate or remand | Dauajares: allege PRA sabotaged Mexican suit and failed to notify them; contest remand | Court: declines to consider post-record factual materials on appeal; no abuse of discretion shown based on record presented |
| Available protections short of automatic return clause | PRA: need retention to avoid statute-of-limitations or enforcement problems if foreign forum fails | Dauajares: wary of game-playing; oppose easy reinstatement | Court: trial court can impose alternative conditions (jurisdiction stipulations, waiver of limitations, discovery, enforcement obligations) enforceable by sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Direct Color Servs., Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 929 S.W.2d 558 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1996) (court affirmed dismissal and discussed stipulations regarding foreign forum)
- Pirelli Tire, L.L.C. v. [In re Pirelli Tire, L.L.C.], 247 S.W.3d 670 (Tex. 2007) (plurality) (acknowledges return-jurisdiction conditions under statutory forum-non-conveniens framework)
- Vasquez v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 325 F.3d 665 (5th Cir. 2003) (establishes bright-line rule that omission of return clause is per se abuse of discretion)
- Leetsch v. Freedman, 260 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2001) (rejects bright-line rule; holds conditions are discretionary and required only if doubt exists about cooperation with foreign forum)
- Yavuz v. 61 MM, Ltd., 576 F.3d 1166 (10th Cir. 2009) (holds return-jurisdiction provisions are discretionary)