Pablo Rion Y Asociados, S.A. De C v. v. David Dauajare and Gabriela Martinez De Dauajare
14-15-00611-CV
| Tex. App. | Sep 11, 2015Background
- Appellees (Dauajare) moved to dismiss the case on forum non conveniens; the court of appeals previously granted mandamus directing the trial court to vacate its denial and dismiss the case on forum non conveniens.
- Following that mandate, the trial court entered an order dismissing the case on forum non conveniens.
- Appellant (Pablo Rion y Asociados) filed a post-dismissal motion titled “Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform or for a New Trial” (MNT) seeking three conditions on dismissal (permitting refiling in Mexico City, defendants’ submission to Mexican jurisdiction, and reinstatement if Mexican courts decline jurisdiction).
- The MNT was not set for hearing and was denied by operation of law.
- Appellant appealed the trial court’s dismissal and the denial of the MNT; appellees moved to dismiss the appeal as frivolous, arguing the prior mandamus decision is law of the case and the trial court lacked authority to add conditions beyond the appellate mandate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court of appeals’ prior mandamus ruling is law of the case | Prior mandamus did not involve pure questions of law and thus may be revisited on appeal | The mandamus resolved the legal question of whether the trial court abused discretion; facts unchanged, so the prior decision is law of the case | Mandamus decision is law of the case and governs subsequent stages because the factual record did not change |
| Whether the trial court could impose additional conditions on dismissal | Trial court should have added requested conditions in the MNT (refile in Mexico City; defendants’ submission to jurisdiction; reinstatement if Mexican court declines) | The appellate mandate unambiguously directed dismissal only; trial court lacked authority to impose conditions beyond the mandate | Trial court had no authority to add conditions not necessary to effect the appellate mandate |
| Whether denial by operation of law of the MNT is reviewable when movant did not set a hearing | Appellant contends denial by operation of law may be appealed and reviewed for abuse of discretion | Failure to set motion for hearing deprives trial court of chance to exercise discretion; appellate review for abuse disfavored when movant did not request a hearing | Appellant’s failure to request a hearing precludes a finding of abuse of discretion; appellate review is improper |
| Whether additional conditions sought were necessary given prior findings about Mexican jurisdiction | Appellant sought conditions to ensure refiling and personal jurisdiction in Mexico | Appellees note appellate mandamus already found Mexican courts would have jurisdiction and thus conditions were superfluous | Conditions (1) and (2) were unnecessary given prior determination that Mexican courts have jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. Wakefield, 711 S.W.2d 628 (Tex. 1986) (law-of-the-case doctrine governs subsequent stages when facts unchanged)
- Phillips v. Bramlett, 407 S.W.3d 229 (Tex. 2013) (trial court cannot act inconsistent with or beyond appellate mandate)
- Strackbein v. Prewitt, 671 S.W.2d 37 (Tex. 1984) (motion for new trial is addressed to trial court's discretion; appellate review requires showing of abuse)
- Shamrock Roofing Supply, Inc. v. Mercantile Nat'l Bank, 703 S.W.2d 356 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1985) (failure to request a hearing precludes finding of abuse when motion overruled by operation of law)
- J.O. Lockridge Gen. Contractors, Inc. v. Morgan, 848 S.W.2d 248 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1993) (law-of-the-case applies when facts on remand are substantially the same)