Affirmed and Opinion Filed June 8, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-21-00289-CV

WESTLEY RISHER, Appellant

V.

MARQUETTE TRANSPORATION COMPANY GULF INLAND LLC, 

Appellee

On Appeal from the 189th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2020-51981

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Garcia

Opinion by Justice Garcia

This is a maritime case in which the trial court granted Marquette 

Transportation Company’s motion to dismiss Westley Risher’s case against it 

pursuant to a forum-selection clause in Risher’s employment contract. In a single 

issue, Risher argues the trial court erred because the agreement was an 

impermissible venue selection agreement rather than a forum-selection agreement.
–2–

For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court’s order.

1

I. BACKGROUND

Pursuant to the terms of his employment with Marquette, Risher signed an 

agreement entitled “Venue Selection Agreement.” The clause at issue in the

agreement provides, in pertinent part:

A. Agreed Upon Venues and Process.

. . . all parties agree that any legal action seeking relief for a covered 

dispute must be filed in either (1) the United States District Court for 

the Western District of Kentucky, or (2) the McCracken County Circuit 

Court in Paducah, Kentucky.

The agreement further provides:

B. Covered Disputes. 

This venue selection agreement . . . will cover all matters directly or 

indirectly related to your recruitment/potential employment, 

employment, or possible termination of employment, including, but not 

limited to, claims involving laws against discrimination whether 

brought under federal and/or state law, and/or personal injury 

claims/Jones Act claims or tort claims of any type, against Marquette 

or any of its current/former employees, supervisors, officers or 

directors.

Risher subsequently claimed that he was injured while working aboard one of 

Marquette’s vessels and filed suit against Marquette in Harris County, Texas. 

1 This case was transferred to us from the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Houston pursuant to a docketequalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. Because 

this is a transfer case, we apply the precedent of the Fourteenth Court of Appeals to the extent it differs 

from our own. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
–3–

Risher’s petition alleged Jones Act negligence, unseaworthiness, and maintenance 

and cure claims against Marquette.

Marquette moved to dismiss Risher’s claims pursuant to the agreement’s

requirement that the dispute be filed in Kentucky, and then answered subject to its 

motion. Risher responded, arguing that Marquette waived its right to seek dismissal 

by filing a Vessel Owner’s Limitation of Liability Action in federal court.2

Marquette replied that there was no waiver and the agreement is a forum- selection 

agreement requiring dismissal of the Harris County case.

The trial court conducted a hearing. Risher did not argue waiver as he had 

done in his response. Instead, he argued that the agreement is an impermissible venue 

selection agreement. Because this argument was raised for the first time at the 

hearing, the court allowed the parties to submit additional briefing.

After the parties submitted additional briefing, the court conducted another 

hearing. When the hearing concluded, the court granted Marquette’s motion to 

dismiss without prejudice. This appeal followed.

II. ANALYSIS

In a single issue, Risher argues the trial court’s dismissal was erroneous 

because a venue selection agreement is unenforceable under Texas law. We review 

2 A Limitation of Liability proceeding is a special proceeding where a federal court sits in admiralty 

and limits a claimant’s potential recovery to the value of the petitioner’s interest in the vessel. See 46 U.S.C. 

§ 30501, et. seq.; Rule F of the Supplementary Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
–4–

the merits of a motion to dismiss de novo. See Bethel v. Quilling, Selander, Lownds, 

Winslett & Moser, P.C., 595 S.W.3d 651, 654 (Tex. 2020); see also Wooley v. 

Schaffer, 447 S.W.3d 71, 76 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied).

“When a state court hears an admiralty case, that court occupies essentially 

the same position occupied by a federal court sitting in diversity: the state court must 

apply substantive maritime law but follow state procedure.” In re OSG Ship Mgmt., 

514 S.W.3d 331, 344 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (quoting 

Maritime Overseas Corp. v. Ellis, 971 S.W.2d 402, 406 (Tex. 1998)). Thus, in a case 

arising under federal general maritime law, federal law determines the enforceability 

of the forum selection clause. See Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 

590 (1991).

Under maritime law, forum-selection agreements are presumptively valid and 

are enforced unless the party seeking to avoid the agreement shows that 

enforceability “would be unreasonable” or against “a strong public policy of the 

forum in which suit is brought.” M/S Bremen v. Zapata Offshore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 

10, 17–18 (1972). Here, Risher’s argument that the agreement is void as against 

Texas public policy implicates the latter.

Risher contends that the agreement’s generous use of the word “venue” 

indicates that it is a venue selection agreement. We disagree.

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals considered and rejected a similar argument 

in OSG. See OSG, 514 S.W.3d at 336. In that case, appellant argued that an 
–5–

agreement designating “a federal court located in Hillsborough County, Florida, or 

alternatively, a state court of competent jurisdiction located in Hillsborough County, 

Florida” constituted an unenforceable venue selection agreement. Id. The court 

noted that “[n]ot all agreements can be neatly labeled as selecting a forum or a venue. 

Some agreements select both.” Id. at 337. The court concluded that the agreement 

also included a forum selection clause because “the choice . . . to select a county in 

the State of Florida as the proper venue necessarily implies that [the parties] chose 

the State of Florida as the forum for a suit . . . .” Id.; see also In re Morice, No. 01-

11-00541-CV, 2011 WL 4101141, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 15, 

2011, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (selection of New York county implied selection 

of New York state as the forum for suit).

Texas courts routinely enforce agreements selecting foreign fora as valid 

forum-selection clauses, regardless of whether the agreement specifies a particular 

venue in the chosen forum. See In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am, 494 S.W.3d 708, 

717 (Tex. 2016) (enforcing forum-selection clause requiring suit to be filed in 

Franklin County, Ohio); In re Int’l Profit Assocs., 274 S.W.3d 672, 674, 680 (Tex. 

2009) (enforcing forum selection clause requiring suit in Nineteenth Judicial District 

of Lake County, Illinois); SH Salon L.L.C. v. Midtown Mkt. Mo. City, TX LLC, 632 

S.W.3d 655, 660 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, no pet.) (enforcing forum 

selection clause requiring suit in New York State Supreme Court, Monroe County, 

New York).
–6–

In this case, the parties agreed on a forum—Kentucky—in which disputes 

were to be litigated. That the agreement also specifies venue in the designated forum 

does not change the character of the agreement from a forum-selection agreement to 

a venue selection agreement. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in concluding 

that the agreement at issue is a forum-selection agreement requiring dismissal of the 

Harris County suit.

The trial court’s order is affirmed.

210289f.p05

/Dennise Garcia/

DENNISE GARCIA

JUSTICE
–7–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

WESTLEY RISHER, Appellant

No. 05-21-00289-CV V.

MARQUETTE TRANSPORATION 

COMPANY GULF INLAND LLC, 

Appellee

On Appeal from the 189th District 

Court, Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2020-51981.

Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia. 

Justices Molberg and Reichek 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order is 

AFFIRMED.

It is ORDERED that appellee MARQUETTE TRANSPORATION 

COMPANY GULF INLAND LLC recover its costs of this appeal from appellant 

WESTLEY RISHER.

Judgment entered this 8

th day of June 2022.