Rouse v. Texas Capital Bank, N.A.
394 S.W.3d 1
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Rouse is an Oklahoma partner in Tri-County Auto-plex and signed an unlimited Guaranty with Texas Capital Bank (TCB) to secure a floor plan loan for TCA.
- The Guaranty includes a broad forum selection clause: Texas courts have jurisdiction and venue is in Dallas County for disputes arising under or pertaining to the Guaranty.
- TCA defaulted on the Loan Agreement in 2010; TCB sued TCA in Texas for breach of the Loan Agreement and breach of Guaranty against Rouse and guarantors.
- On May 11, 2010, Rouse sued in Oklahoma, alleging fraud and related claims against TCB and others related to the Loan Agreement.
- TCB challenged in Oklahoma court by special appearances and motions to stay, while Texas case proceeded; Oklahoma denied relief; Oklahoma Supreme Court declined stay relief.
- TCB sought and obtained an anti-suit injunction in Texas to prevent Rouse from pursuing the Oklahoma suit until Texas case resolution; the Texas court granted the injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the forum selection clause encompasses Oklahoma tort claims | Rouse: claims not covered; not dependent on Guaranty or contract | TCB: claims arise under or pertain to Guaranty; compulsory counterclaims in Texas | Yes; claims fall within the clause and injunction proper |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Int’l Profit Assocs., Inc., 274 S.W.3d 672 (Tex.2009) (valid forum clause enforceable absent unreasonableness)
- RSR Corp. v. Siegmund, 309 S.W.3d 686 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010) (forum clauses cover claims related to contract)
- My Café-CCC, Ltd. v. Lunchstop, Inc., 107 S.W.3d 860 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003) (claims with relation to the agreement may fall within broad clause)
- Accelerated Christian Educ., Inc. v. Oracle Corp., 925 S.W.2d 66 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1996) (noncontract claims barred if arising out of contractual relations)
- Golden Rule Ins. Co. v. Harper, 925 S.W.2d 649 (Tex.1996) (anti-suit injunctions require compelling comity and public policy)
- Gannon v. Payne, 706 S.W.2d 304 (Tex.1996) (injunctions to protect court jurisdiction may be warranted)
- Forum Ins. Co. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 929 S.W.2d 114 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1996) (multiplicity and comity considerations in anti-suit relief)
- In re AIU Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 109 (Tex.2004) (forum selection clause enforcement not hindered by later trial in another forum)
- Triton Energy Ltd. v. American Intern. Specialty Lines Co., 52 S.W.3d 337 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2001) (anti-suit injunction requires clear equity under Golden Rule factors)
- Nowell v. Nowell, 408 S.W.2d 550 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1966) (comity doctrine supports staying parallel suits)