Case Title: Patriot Exploration, LLC v. Thompson & Knight, LLP

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: new-york

Court: New York Appellate Court

Date: 2011-02-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
=================================================================
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No. 88  SSM 4
Patriot Exploration, LLC, et al.,
            Respondents,
        v.
Thompson & Knight LLP,
            Appellant.
Submitted by E. Michael Sheehan, for appellant.
Submitted by Peter B. McGlynn, for respondents.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed
with costs, and defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint
granted on the conditions that defendant (1) consent to deeming
the filing date of the Texas action to be as of October 27, 2008,
- 1 -
- 2 -
 SSM No. 4
the date respondents filed this action in New York, and (2) waive
any statute of limitations defense in the Texas action.  The
certified question should be answered in the negative.
It is apparent from the record that defendant's forum
non conveniens motion was denied on the basis of Supreme Court's
mistaken understanding that plaintiffs would face a statute of
limitations barrier to suit in an alternative forum.  In fact,
plaintiffs failed to show that any such barrier exists, and in
any event, the issue can be dealt with by the imposition of
conditions to which defendant has consented.
The Appellate Division majority abused its discretion
in finding that traditional forum non conveniens factors
warranted denial of the motion (Islamic Republic of Iran v
Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 478 [1984]).  This case involves the
alleged malpractice by Texas lawyers representing Alaskan
clients, whose principal places of business are in Connecticut,
in a transaction with Texas companies that involves land in
Texas.  Further, the documentary evidence is located in
defendant's Texas office, as are the attorneys who allegedly
committed the malpractice and most of the potential witnesses.
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules,
order reversed, with costs, defendant's motion to dismiss the
complaint granted on the conditions that defendant (1) consent to
deeming the filing date of the Texas action to be as of October
27, 2008, the date respondents filed this action in New York, and
(2) waive any statute of limitations defense in the Texas action,
and certified question answered in the negative, in a memorandum.
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith,
Pigott and Jones concur.
Decided February 17, 2011 
- 2 -