Renato Acain v. International Plant Services, LLC, Noureddine Ayed, Karim Ayed, Richard Dale Johnston, Adrienne Wilson, and Leysander Bustamonte
449 S.W.3d 655
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Fifty-seven Filipino former employees sued International Plant Services, LLC (IPS), the Filipino recruiter MBC, and individual defendants in Texas alleging human-trafficking, fraud, breach of contract, unpaid wages, conversion, and conspiracy arising from their recruitment in the Philippines and employment in Texas.
- Plaintiffs allege they were induced to pay placement fees, were given repayable “allowances” instead of wages (creating debt bondage), were threatened with deportation/blacklisting, and were prevented from finding other employment in Texas.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under international comity, relying chiefly on the Philippines’ Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act (RA 8042) and its Section 10 vesting exclusive jurisdiction in the Philippines’ NLRC, and pointing to the POEA regulatory regime.
- The Texas trial court granted dismissal on comity grounds; plaintiffs appealed. The appeals court reviewed whether dismissal for comity was appropriate under the Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations (Sections 402/403) factors.
- The court applied an abuse-of-discretion standard, weighed the Section 403 factors (links to Texas, parties’ connections, character of activity, other state interests, and risk of conflict), and concluded Texas had a sufficient interest and connections such that declining to exercise jurisdiction was unreasonable.
- The court reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings, concluding the trial court erred in deferring to the Philippines under comity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for comity-based dismissal | Dismissal implicates subject-matter jurisdiction; review de novo | Comity abstention is discretionary; review for abuse of discretion | Abuse-of-discretion standard applies (court looks to substance of relief sought) |
| Whether Texas court should decline jurisdiction on international comity grounds | Texas has strong contacts (contracts performed and harm in Texas; many plaintiffs/residents in Texas); Philippines concurrent jurisdiction only; Texas policy against trafficking; POEA director said Texas can hear case | Philippines has an extensive regulatory scheme (RA 8042, POEA, NLRC exclusive-jurisdiction provision); some wrongful acts occurred in Philippines; Philippines’ interest outweighs Texas | Applying Restatement §403 factors, court held dismissal was unreasonable; reversed and remanded (Texas may exercise jurisdiction) |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standard for reviewing legal questions and construing pleadings)
- Masterson v. Diocese of Nw. Tex., 422 S.W.3d 594 (Tex. 2013) (Texas courts must not delegate judicial prerogative where jurisdiction exists)
- Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1895) (definition and foundation of international comity)
- Randall v. Arabian American Oil Co., 778 F.2d 1146 (5th Cir. 1985) (foreign exclusive-jurisdiction provisions do not automatically oust U.S. court jurisdiction)
- Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Webb, 809 S.W.2d 899 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1991) (applying Restatement factors to comity analysis)
- Gulf Oil Co. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1947) (forum non conveniens balancing principle)