Opinion ID: 2833943
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Timeliness of Pirelli’s Motion

Text: As a threshold matter, the Arans contend the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss because Pirelli’s motion was untimely under subsection (d) of the forum-non- conveniens statute, section 71.051 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, [2] enacted by Act of May 29, 1997, 75th Leg., R.S., ch . 424, § 1, 1997 Tex. Gen. Laws 1680, 1680. Under that provision, a request for a stay or dismissal on forum-non- conveniens grounds must be filed within 180 days of the time for filing a motion to transfer venue. The Arans acknowledge that Pirelli filed a motion to dismiss concurrently with its answer, but they maintain that motion was inadequate because it consisted of only three paragraphs and contemplated that Pirelli would later file a supplemental brief more fully explaining Pirelli’s contentions. In contesting the timeliness of Pirelli’s motion, the Arans focus solely on the expanded motion to dismiss that Pirelli filed in February 2004, well after the time allowed under section 71.051(d) had expired. We disagree that Pirelli’s motion to dismiss was untimely. It is undisputed that Pirelli apprised the trial court of its claim that Cameron County was an inappropriate forum within the time allowed under section 71.051(d). Pirelli’s original dismissal motion contended Cameron County had no connection with the accident, Mexico was a more appropriate forum, Mexican law provided the Arans an adequate remedy, and the balance of public and private interests weighed in favor of dismissal. Pirelli’s second motion merely expanded on those contentions and identified specific events and circumstances supporting them. That Pirelli later supplemented its initial argument is entirely consistent with section 71.051(d), which allows a trial court to rule on a forum-non- conveniens motion only after a hearing with at least twenty-one days’ notice to the parties. The statute further requires the court to provide the parties “ample opportunity” to obtain discovery relevant to the motion prior to the hearing. Thus, the statute contemplates that a motion may be filed and then supplemented in light of discovery. Pirelli’s motion was not untimely.