Court Opinion

ID: 9777989
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:29:39.759958+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:02.933017
License: Public Domain

SEARS, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
A Texas court clearly has the power to protect its jurisdiction by enjoining the prosecution of a suit subsequently filed involving the same controversy. The application of that power to actions subsequently filed in sister states, however, should be exercised sparingly and only by reason of special circumstances. Gannon v. Payne, 706 S.W.2d 304 (Tex.1986). The power should be used only where a clear equity is presented requiring the interposition of the court to prevent manifest wrong and injustice. PPG Industries v. Continental Oil Co., 492 S.W.2d 297 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1973, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
*733I do not believe a clear equity was present which would support the trial court’s injunction. The dissimilarity in parties and issues will prevent the Texas court from affording complete relief and will not prevent a multiplicity of suits.
Though the California and Texas actions indisputably involve the same subject matter, the parties and issues are not the same. Notwithstanding its acknowledgment of a California cause of action that is not recognized in Texas, the majority concludes the Texas court can afford complete relief. However, the trial court’s order will not prevent a multiplicity of suits, and the complete relief envisioned in the majority opinion is not likely.
Quite simply, no clear equity justifying the grant of the injunction is present. The trial court exceeded the restraint appropriate in this exceptional circumstance of enjoining an action in a sister state.
I further believe the majority misapprehends the doctrine of forum non conve-niens. The doctrine of forum non conve-niens is invoked by a party defendant contending that a court should decline to exercise jurisdiction. Flaiz v. Moore, 359 S.W.2d 872 (Tex.1962). “The principle of forum non conveniens is simply that a court may resist imposition upon its jurisdiction — ” Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 506, 67 S.Ct. 839, 842, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947). Appellee quite properly invoked the doctrine in California, urging the California court to decline to exercise its jurisdiction. The court denied Appel-lee’s motion. Appellee appealed that ruling and the California Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s finding that California was a convenient forum.
After losing on the issue in California, Appellee again pleaded forum non conve-niens in Texas, not as a defendant asking the Texas court to decline jurisdiction, but as a plaintiff using an improper tool to support the issuance of an injunction against the California action. Having raised the issue of forum non conveniens in the inappropriate forum, Appellee has been successful in convincing the trial court and the majority of this court that the parties who did not raise the issue of forum non conveniens, and who argued for exclusion of evidence on the issue, nonetheless had the burden of proof on the issue.
Typically, forum non conveniens is a defensive issue to gain dismissal or transfer-ral of a case to another, more convenient forum. See Flaiz v. Moore, 359 S.W.2d 872 (Tex.1962). In the Texas court, however, Appellee raised forum non conve-niens, not to gain dismissal or transfer, but to show that California was an inconvenient forum. The majority contends the trial court did not find California an inconvenient forum. However, without determining California inconvenient, how can the trial court determine a clear equity in Appellee’s favor which required enjoining further California action? Asserting the Texas court only found Texas was a convenient forum begs the issue, ignores the reality, and misapplies the doctrine.
Generally speaking, where a cause of action may be filed in either of two courts, the court first acquiring jurisdiction will retain jurisdiction. Gurvich v. Tyree, 694 S.W.2d 39, 43 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1985, no writ). Appellee filed first in Texas; however, it appears Appellee was aware of Appellants’ intent to file a lawsuit and caused a delay of Appellants’ lawsuit on the pretext of settlement. With Appellants temporarily placated, Appellee then made its rush to the courthouse to be first to file. It is undisputed that the issue of forum non conveniens was first raised and adjudicated in California. The Texas trial court then refused to recognize California’s prior adjudication. I believe the trial court erred in failing to defer to California’s pri- or refusal to dismiss on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. We should have given full faith and credit to the orders and decrees of our sister state.
If, under the doctrine of forum non con-veniens, a serious question arises as to whether a Texas court should retain jurisdiction, an injunction prohibiting trial in a convenient foreign jurisdiction is a clear abuse of discretion. PPG Industries, 492 *734S.W.2d at 300. Appellants raised serious questions concerning parties and issues. California had previously been determined a convenient forum. The action of this trial court opens the door to California’s injoining Appellee from proceeding with its lawsuit in Texas. Without a recognition of the findings and rulings of courts of foreign jurisdiction, the parties could be in a situation where neither party could proceed to judgment or where neither jurisdiction would recognize the judgments of the other. Gannon v. Payne, 706 S.W.2d at 306.
I would dissolve the temporary injunction because its grant was a clear abuse of discretion.