37.001, et seq. We affirm, but for a different reason. The district court in the instant case relied on a statement in Bituminous that Tex. The court apparently interpreted Bituminous as a broad holding applying to any declaratory judgment arising under Texas law.
Federal courts follow the American Rule in the absence of fee-shifting congressional legislation.
See Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Unlike substantive law, however, Texas procedure does not govern this diversity action. Texas DJA is neither substantive nor controlling. Though jurisdiction in Korioth arose through a federal question claim rather than diversity, the decision's language clearly indicates, and we now hold, that a party may not rely on the Texas DJA to authorize attorney's fees in a diversity case because the statute is not substantive law. The Mitchell Defendants have failed to show they are entitled to attorney's fees under an applicable fee-shifting statute.