Case Information
*0 FILED IN 2nd COURT OF APPEALS FORT WORTH, TEXAS 9/28/2015 12:39:10 PM DEBRA SPISAK Clerk *1 ACCEPTED 02-14-00405-CV SECOND COURT OF APPEALS FORT WORTH, TEXAS 9/28/2015 12:39:10 PM DEBRA SPISAK CLERK
No. 02-14-00405-CV COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND DISTRICT FORT WORTH, TEXAS MARK ROLLINS, Appellant, v.
HART SECURITY, LTD., Appellee.
On Appeal from the 141st District Court Cause No. 141-274465-14 of Tarrant County, Texas, the Honorable John P. Chupp, Presiding UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE POST-SUBMISSION LETTER BRIEF TO THE HONORABLE SECOND COURT OF APPEALS:
Appellant Mark Rollins (“Rollins”) files this motion requesting permission to file the attached letter brief.
This case was submitted on oral argument on September 1, 2015. The primary purpose of the attached letter brief is to address an issue raised for the first time on appeal at oral argument regarding the time of the filing of the
English lawsuit in relation to Appellee’s Rule 202 petition seeking a “pre-suit”
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE POST-SUBMISSION LETTER BRIEF PAGE 1
deposition, and what impact, if any, that procedural issue has on the Court’s
disposition of the case.
This motion is made in the interest of justice and not for the purpose of delay.
For these reasons, Rollins prays this Court grant its motion for leave and file its post-submission letter brief.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ John H. Cayce, Jr.
William D. Wood John H. Cayce, Jr.
State Bar No. 21916500 State Bar No. 04035650
william.wood@nortonrosefulbright.com john.cayce@kellyhart.com
Warren S. Huang Dee. J. Kelly, Jr.
State Bar No. 00796788 State Bar No. 11217250
warren.huang@nortonrosefulbright.com dee.kelly.2@kellyhart.com
Justin Tschoepe Joe Greenhill
State Bar No. 24079480 State Bar No. 24084523
justin.tschoepe@nortonrosefulbright.com joe.greenhill@kellyhart.com
F ULBRIGHT J AWORSKI K ELLY ART H ALLMAN LLP
1301 McKinney, Suite 5100 201 Main Street, Suite 2500
Houston, Texas 77010-3095 Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Telephone: (713) 651-5151 Telephone: (817) 332-2500
Telecopier: (713) 651-5246 Telecopier: (817) 878-9280
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT MARK ROLLINS CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE On September 23, 2015, I spoke to Ryan Valdez, counsel for Appellee, and he stated that Appellee does not oppose this motion.
/s/ John H. Cayce, Jr. John H. Cayce, Jr. UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE POST-SUBMISSION LETTER BRIEF PAGE 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 28th day of September, 2015, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been delivered to the following counsel of
record by electronic service and/or e-mail:
Jack W. Massey
jack.massey@sutherland.com
Robert A. Lemus
robert.lemus@sutherland.com
S UTHERLAND A SBILL B RENNAN LLP 1001 Fannin Street, Suite 3700
Houston, Texas 77002
Robert D. Owen
robert.owen@sutherland.com S UTHERLAND A SBILL B RENNAN LLP 1114 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036
Ralph H. Duggins
rduggins@canteyhanger.com
Ryan Logan Valdez
rvaldez@canteyhanger.com ANTEY ANGER
600 West 6th Street, Suite 300
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Counsel for Appellee Hart Security Ltd.
/s/ Joe Greenhill Joe Greenhill UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE POST-SUBMISSION LETTER BRIEF PAGE 3 *4 T ELEPHONE : (817) 878-3597
john.cayce@kellyhart.com F AX : (817) 878-9797 J OHN H. C AYCE , J R .
Via Electronic Filing
Debra Spisak, Clerk
S ECOND C OURT OF A PPEALS
Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center
401 W. Belknap, 9th floor
Fort Worth, Texas 76196
Re: Cause No. 02-14-00405-CV; Mark Rollins v. Hart Security, Ltd .; in the Second Court of Appeals, Fort Worth, Texas Dear Justices Gardner, Meier, and Sudderth:
This case was submitted on oral argument on Tuesday, September 1, 2015.
During argument, counsel for Hart presented the panel with a copy of a filed claim
form regarding the English lawsuit and suggested that counsel for Mr. Rollins had
misrepresented that the lawsuit was filed prior to Hart’s Rule 202 petition. To the
extent that the briefs submitted on Mr. Rollins’ behalf inadvertently allege that the
English lawsuit was filed prior to the Rule 202 petition, this allegation is
incorrect. [1] Importantly, however, whether the English lawsuit was filed prior to or
after the Rule 202 petition is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether the trial
court abused its discretion in granting the petition to investigate a potential claim
that is governed by a mandatory forum selection clause fixing exclusive
jurisdiction over the claim in English courts. [2] Under Trooper , the trial court had
no discretion as a matter of law to grant Hart’s 202 petition irrespective of when
the English lawsuit was filed, because the trial court would lack authority to
adjudicate the potential claim if suit is filed against Mr. Rollins on that claim. [3]
Br.Appellant8-16; ReplyBr.2-18; see In re Doe a/k/a “Trooper , ” 444 S.W.3d 603,
607-09 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding); see also City of Willow Park v. Squaw
Creek Downs, L.P. , 166 S.W.3d 336, 340 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.).
Contrary to Hart’s assertion that Trooper is distinguishable, Trooper is on all fours with this case in at least one critical respect: like the anonymous blogger in
Trooper , Mr. Rollins is a “ potential defendant .” Br.Appellee1; [CR22]. As such,
Mr. Rollins was entitled to the same rights and protections in the 202 proceeding
as he would be in a lawsuit involving the potential claim— including the right to
challenge the trial court’s jurisdiction . Trooper , 444 S.W.3d at 608-10. The only
difference between the jurisdictional challenge in Trooper and the jurisdictional
challenge here is that Mr. Rollins bases his challenge on a mandatory forum
selection clause , [4] whereas the challenge by the potential defendant in Trooper was
based on personal jurisdiction . Despite this difference, the result is the same—the
trial court has no discretion to grant Rule 202 discovery to investigate the potential
claim against Mr. Rollins, because the courts of England would have exclusive
jurisdiction over any suit filed by Hart on the potential claim.
Hart’s contention at oral argument that English law precludes Mr. Rollins from challenging jurisdiction under the mandatory forum selection clause also has
no merit. [5] None of Hart’s cryptic statements of English law are inconsistent with
the well-established legal doctrines discussed in Mr. Rollins’ reply brief that
permit non-signatory parties to invoke a forum selection clause under Texas law.
See ReplyBr.13-18. Instead, the English authorities on which Hart relies appear to
involve situations where the non-signatory is suing to enforce the contract ; those
authorities do not address the situation where, as here, the non-signatory
(Mr. Rollins) has invoked a forum selection as a defense to avoid litigation in a
forum which the plaintiff contractually agreed not litigate the claim in question.
Texas law clearly gives Mr. Rollins the right to do this.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this letter brief. Respectfully submitted, /s/ John H. Cayce, Jr.
William D. Wood John H. Cayce, Jr.
State Bar No. 21916500 State Bar No. 04035650
william.wood@nortonrosefulbright.com john.cayce@kellyhart.com
Warren S. Huang Dee. J. Kelly, Jr.
State Bar No. 00796788 State Bar No. 11217250
warren.huang@nortonrosefulbright.com dee.kelly.2@kellyhart.com
Justin Tschoepe Joe Greenhill
State Bar No. 24079480 State Bar No. 24084523
justin.tschoepe@nortonrosefulbright.com joe.greenhill@kellyhart.com
F ULBRIGHT J AWORSKI K ELLY ART H ALLMAN LLP
1301 McKinney, Suite 5100 201 Main Street, Suite 2500
Houston, Texas 77010-3095 Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Telephone: (713) 651-5151 Telephone: (817) 332-2500
Telecopier: (713) 651-5246 Telecopier: (817) 878-9280
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT MARK ROLLINS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 28th day of September, 2015, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been delivered to the following counsel of
record by electronic service and/or e-mail:
Jack W. Massey
jack.massey@sutherland.com
Robert A. Lemus
robert.lemus@sutherland.com
S UTHERLAND A SBILL B RENNAN LLP 1001 Fannin Street, Suite 3700
Houston, Texas 77002
Robert D. Owen
robert.owen@sutherland.com S UTHERLAND A SBILL B RENNAN LLP 1114 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036
Ralph H. Duggins
rduggins@canteyhanger.com
Ryan Logan Valdez
rvaldez@canteyhanger.com ANTEY ANGER
600 West 6th Street, Suite 300
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Counsel for Appellee Hart Security Ltd.
/s/ John H. Cayce, Jr. John H. Cayce, Jr.
[1] Hart’s counsel similarly alleged in the trial court: “[w]e know those [claims] are pending in England.” [RR12]. FORT WORTH OFFICE |
[201] M AIN S TREET , S UITE
[2500] | F ORT W ORTH , TX
[76102] | T ELEPHONE : (817) 332-2500 | F AX : (817) 878-9280 AUSTIN OFFICE |
[303] OLORADO , S UITE
[2000] | A USTIN , TX
[78701] | T ELEPHONE : (512) 495-6400 | F AX : (512) 495-6401 MIDLAND OFFICE |
[508] W. W ALL , S UITE
[444] | M IDLAND , TX
[79701] | T ELEPHONE : (432) 683-4691 | F AX : (432) 683-6518 NEW ORLEANS OFFICE
[400] P OYDRAS S TREET , S UITE
[1812] | N EW O RLEANS , LA
[70130] | T ELEPHONE : (504) 522-1812 | F AX : (504) 522-1813 Kelly Hart & Hallman, a Limited Liability Partnership | www.kellyhart.com
[2] The timing of the English lawsuit is also irrelevant to whether the trial court’s benefit/burden finding is supported by the pleadings and the evidence. The insufficiency of Hart’s pleadings and evidence is fatal to Hart’s petition and requires that the trial court’s order be reversed and vacated, as matter of Texas law. Br.Appellant16-20; ReplyBr.19-22. Hart’s burden is not satisfied by the mere fact that Mr. Rollins lives in Tarrant County. If that were the case, the benefit/burden requirement would be meaningless in every circumstance where a 202 petition is filed to investigate a potential claim. See T EX . R. IV . P. 202.2(b)(2) (petition to investigate potential claim must be filed the county “where the witness resides”).
[3] As counsel for Mr. Rollins clarified at oral argument, because the mandatory forum selection clause vests the courts of England with exclusive jurisdiction over the underlying dispute, the trial court abused its discretion in exercising its jurisdiction over the dispute for pre-suit discovery purposes. The trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction is not at issue.
[4] As a potential defendant and non-signatory to the agreement containing the mandatory forum selection clause, Mr. Rollins has the legal right to invoke the mandatory forum selection clause under the direct benefits estoppel doctrine and the transaction participant rule. ReplyBr.13-18.
[5] Moreover, the argument is waived because Hart has failed to supply the Court with the full text of the English authorities on which it relies. In re S.N.A. , No. 2-07-349-CV, 2008 WL 4938108, at *1-2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 20, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.).