Court Opinion

ID: 9964171
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-28 14:09:22.63116+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:12.376727
License: Public Domain

Supreme Court of Texas
                            ══════════
                             No. 22-1014
                            ══════════

             In re Weatherford International, LLC and
                    Weatherford Services, Ltd.,
                                Relators

   ═══════════════════════════════════════
           On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
   ═══════════════════════════════════════

                            PER CURIAM

      This mandamus petition challenges a trial court’s denial of a
motion to dismiss claims of wrongful death based on statutory forum
non conveniens. The claims concern whether a Texas-based company
failed to disclose the concerning results of an Egyptian medical
examination to its employee, a U.K. citizen domiciled in South Africa
who had been seconded to the company’s Egyptian affiliate. We hold the
trial court clearly abused its discretion by failing to dismiss the claims
on forum non conveniens grounds and conditionally grant relief.

                                    I

      The following facts are drawn from evidence submitted by the
parties in connection with the motion to dismiss, which we view in the
light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling. 1 Relator Weatherford
International, LLC, is headquartered in Houston, and relator
Weatherford Services, Ltd., is a related Bermuda company operating
from Houston. Because distinguishing between these companies is not
necessary to our forum non conveniens analysis, we refer to them
collectively as Weatherford Houston.
      Kevin Milne was an employee of Weatherford Services.             In
September 2018, Milne accepted an international assignment to work
for Weatherford Services S. de R.L., another related company formed
under Panamanian law but operating from Egypt. We refer to this
company as Weatherford Egypt.       Weatherford Services paid Milne,
retained taxes, and administered his benefits during the assignment.
      According to Weatherford Houston’s policy regarding long-term
international assignments, all employees of all Weatherford entities
who are seconded to an overseas affiliate must undergo a medical
examination once before beginning an international assignment and
again every two years while on that assignment. Milne underwent two
medical examinations. In October 2018, prior to his relocation, Milne
needed medical clearance to visit offshore rigs in Egypt and Tunisia.
Employees of Weatherford Egypt facilitated a medical exam for him at
the Degla Medical Center in Egypt. In November, International SOS
conducted the second exam in South Africa. The International SOS
exam provided the clearance required by Weatherford Houston’s policy.

      1 See Quixtar Inc. v. Signature Mgmt. Team, LLC, 315 S.W.3d 28, 31

(Tex. 2010); Kirkpatrick v. Custom Tuning Team Inc., No. 03-22-00093-CV,
2024 WL 79890, at *3 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 5, 2024, no pet.).

                                   2
      Degla’s exam revealed that Milne had a renal mass around his
left kidney, and its certificate recommended further assessment of the
mass. Weatherford Houston contends that Degla did not transmit this
certificate to Weatherford Egypt because the rig visits were canceled.
International SOS’s exam report did not mention a renal mass, although
it indicated that Milne’s uric acid levels were outside the normal range.
      Milne was not informed of Degla’s findings until a year later,
when he requested a copy of his Degla medical certificate from
Weatherford Egypt. Further investigation revealed that the renal mass
was a tumor, and Milne died after unsuccessful medical intervention to
remove it.
      The underlying suit began as a dispute over entitlement to
Milne’s life-insurance proceeds. Weatherford Houston filed a petition
for interpleader in district court in Houston and paid the proceeds into
the court’s registry. Milne’s widow, a South African citizen, filed a
supplemental petition asserting claims for wrongful death against
Weatherford Houston.      She sought actual damages for negligence
regarding Weatherford Houston’s failure to inform Milne of his renal
mass and its alleged policies “prevent[ing] the clinics from sharing
information with the employees.” Milne’s children, who are Scottish
citizens, intervened and asserted similar claims.
      Weatherford Houston moved to dismiss the claims for wrongful
death based on forum non conveniens, asserting that those claims have
no meaningful connection to Texas. Following limited discovery, the
Milnes responded that Weatherford Houston had a duty to implement a
global policy ensuring that employees timely receive medical reports

                                   3
from work-related medical exams. The trial court denied Weatherford
Houston’s motion.
      Weatherford Houston filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the
court of appeals, which was denied without substantive explanation.
___ S.W.3d ___, 2022 WL 7180370 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct.
13, 2022). Weatherford Houston now seeks mandamus relief in this
Court, asserting that the trial court abused its discretion because the
forum non conveniens statute requires dismissal.

                                   II

      Because there is no adequate remedy by appeal when a motion to
dismiss for forum non conveniens is erroneously denied, mandamus
relief is available if the trial court clearly abused its discretion in
denying the motion. In re Gen. Elec. Co., 271 S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tex.
2008); In re Pirelli Tire, L.L.C., 247 S.W.3d 670, 676 (Tex. 2007). “As a
general rule, the forum non conveniens decision is committed to the trial
court’s sound discretion and may be set aside only for a clear abuse of
discretion.” In re Mahindra USA, Inc., 549 S.W.3d 541, 545 (Tex. 2018).
      Texas recognizes two types of forum non conveniens analysis.
Statutory forum non conveniens “applies to actions for personal injury
or wrongful death.”      TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 71.051(i).
Common-law forum non conveniens applies in all other types of actions.
Mahindra, 549 S.W.3d at 544; Alvarez Gottwald v. Dominguez de Cano,
568 S.W.3d 241, 246 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2019, no pet.). We apply the
statute to these claims for wrongful death.
      The statute provides that trial courts “shall consider” six factors
to determine whether dismissal for forum non conveniens would be “in

                                   4
the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties.” TEX. CIV.
PRAC. & REM. CODE § 71.051(b). Those factors are whether:
      (1) an alternate forum exists in which the claim or action
      may be tried;
      (2) the alternate forum provides an adequate remedy;
      (3) maintenance of the claim or action in the courts of this
      state would work a substantial injustice to the moving
      party;
      (4) the alternate forum, as a result of the submission of the
      parties or otherwise, can exercise jurisdiction over all the
      defendants properly joined to the plaintiff’s claim;
      (5) the balance of the private interests of the parties and
      the public interest of the state predominate in favor of the
      claim or action being brought in an alternate forum, which
      shall include consideration of the extent to which an injury
      or death resulted from acts or omissions that occurred in
      this state; and
      (6) the stay or dismissal would not result in unreasonable
      duplication or proliferation of litigation.
Id.
      Because the statute uses the word “shall,” it “requires dismissal
of the claim or action if the statutory factors weigh in favor of the claim
or action being more properly heard in a forum outside Texas.” Gen.
Elec. Co., 271 S.W.3d at 686. No single factor is dispositive. See Quixtar
Inc. v. Signature Mgmt. Team, LLC, 315 S.W.3d 28, 34 (Tex. 2010) (“If
‘central emphasis were placed on any one factor, the forum non
conveniens doctrine would lose much of the flexibility that makes it so
valuable.’” (quoting Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 249-50
(1981))). When all factors weigh in favor of a claim being heard in a
forum outside Texas, the trial court clearly abuses its discretion by

                                    5
denying a motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds. See In
re ENSCO Offshore Int’l Co., 311 S.W.3d 921, 929 (Tex. 2010). We
address each statutory factor in turn.
      First, an alternate forum exists “where the defendant is amenable
to process.” Id. at 924. Because the Milnes agree that Weatherford
Houston is amenable to process in Egypt, this factor weighs in favor of
dismissal.
      Second, the alternate forum provides an adequate remedy if “the
parties will not be deprived of all remedies or treated unfairly, even
though they may not enjoy the same benefits as they might receive in
an American court.” Pirelli Tire, 247 S.W.3d at 678 (quoting Vasquez v.
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 325 F.3d 665, 671 (5th Cir. 2003)). Just
because a forum has lesser remedies does not render it inadequate under
this factor; a forum will only be considered inadequate if “the remedies
it offers are so unsatisfactory they really comprise no remedy at all.” In
re Oceanografia, S.A. de C.V., 494 S.W.3d 728, 732 (Tex. 2016).
      The Milnes rely on a declaration by Amad Rashed, an Egyptian
attorney whose practice involves tort law, to argue that factor two
weighs in favor of trying the claims for wrongful death in Texas. Rashed
asserts “the amounts [of damages] granted by the Egyptian courts are
effectively de minimus for non-Egyptian parties due to the low value of
the Egyptian pound in exchange of the [U.S. dollar].” But our “primary
consideration is whether the alternate forum entitles [plaintiffs] to a
remedy for their losses, even if compensation for their injuries is less
than what may be awarded in a Texas court.” Gomez de Hernandez v.
Bridgestone/Firestone N. Am. Tire, L.L.C., 204 S.W.3d 473, 483 (Tex.

                                    6
App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2006, pet. denied); see Pirelli Tire, 247
S.W.3d at 678 (concluding adequate remedy existed even though foreign
law “severely restrict[ed]” certain damages).           Although Egyptian
damages may be less due to the exchange rate, Weatherford Houston
presented evidence that Egyptian courts recognize tort claims for
wrongful death and provide heirs a variety of remedies, including direct
damages for the decedent’s medical expenses and lost earnings as well
as damages for suffering by spouses and children. The second factor
weighs in favor of dismissal.
       Third, we consider the defendant’s private interests to determine
whether litigating in Texas would result in substantial injustice. Gen.
Elec. Co., 271 S.W.3d at 689. Trial courts should consider “the location
of relevant documents and evidence and whether a majority of witnesses
may be reached by compulsory process in Texas.” In re Mantle Oil &
Gas, LLC, 426 S.W.3d 182, 192 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012,
orig. proceeding).   And even if a defendant can “seek indemnity or
contribution from a foreign party after being found liable,” substantial
injustice may still occur if it “would be far more convenient . . . to resolve
all claims in one trial.” ENSCO Offshore Int’l Co., 311 S.W.3d at 925
(quoting Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S. at 259).
       Weatherford Houston and the Milnes disagree on who the
relevant witnesses are. The Milnes argue that Weatherford Houston’s
corporate officers, who reside in Texas, are the key witnesses because
they created the long-term international assignment policy, which
imposed a duty on Weatherford Houston to inform all employees—
abroad or at home—of medical conditions discovered through any work-

                                      7
related medical examination. Weatherford Houston responds that it has
no global policy directing Weatherford Egypt on how to handle employee
medical information obtained through examinations conducted for
clearances to visit offshore rig sites.
       We agree with Weatherford Houston.           By its plain terms,
Weatherford Houston’s long-term international assignment policy
requires employees of all Weatherford entities to undergo a medical
examination once before commencing an international assignment and
again every two years while on international assignment. The policy
says nothing about other work-related medical examinations like the
one Milne underwent at Degla for clearance to visit an offshore rig site.
       Further, the record suggests Weatherford Egypt has its own local
policies governing general medical examinations. The key witnesses are
therefore Weatherford Egypt’s local officers or employees who wrote or
carried out those policies, and the Milnes seek to hold Weatherford
Houston vicariously liable for their acts and omissions. In addition,
Weatherford Houston contends that other foreign parties are potentially
responsible for the Milnes’ damages, including the Egyptian doctor who
examined Milne, the clinic that established policies regarding
communication of exam results, and the employees responsible for
carrying out those policies. All the Weatherford Egypt and clinic parties,
who reside in Egypt, are beyond the compulsory subpoena power of a
trial court in Texas. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 176.3(a). And it would be far
more convenient to determine the responsibility of all foreign parties in
one trial. Accordingly, the third factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

                                      8
      Fourth, we consider whether the alternate forum “has jurisdiction
over all the parties and the whole case, or if there is evidence that all
defendants are amenable to process or have consented to process in the
alternate forum.” Alvarez Gottwald, 568 S.W.3d at 249. The Milnes do
not dispute that Egyptian courts have jurisdiction over the claims for
wrongful death, and Weatherford Houston has consented to jurisdiction
in Egypt. As there is no jurisdictional difficulty here, the fourth factor
weighs in favor of dismissal.
      Fifth, courts “take all relevant factors into consideration with
regard to the public and private interest factors.” Gen. Elec. Co., 271
S.W.3d at 692. The private interests of the parties are those considered
under factor three as well as “ease of access to proof, the availability and
cost of compulsory process, . . . and other practical problems that make
trial easy, expeditious, and inexpensive.” Id. at 691. The public interest
of the state includes “administrative difficulties related to court
congestion, burdening the people of a community with jury duty when
they have no relation to the litigation, local interest in having localized
controversies decided at home, and trying a case in the forum that is at
home with the law that governs the case.” Id.
      Beginning with the private-interest factors, we have already
concluded under factor three that the significant witnesses and
documentary evidence relating to Weatherford Egypt’s policies and
other potentially responsible parties are located in Egypt and beyond
the compulsory power of Texas courts.         The Milnes point out that
Weatherford Houston has unrestrained access to proof located in Egypt
because those documents are not “outside the hands of Weatherford or

                                     9
some Weatherford‑controlled subsidiary or contractor.” We disagree.
“Texas law presumes that two separate corporations are indeed distinct
entities,” BMC Software Belg., N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789, 798
(Tex. 2002), so without evidence to the contrary, we cannot presume
Weatherford Egypt is controlled by Weatherford Houston. Additionally,
we have observed that “a promise to produce some or even most evidence
does not cure the logistical problems created by lack of effective
compulsory process for trial.” Gen. Elec. Co., 271 S.W.3d at 691. The
private-interest factors therefore weigh in favor of dismissal.
         The public-interest factors also favor dismissal.   Both parties
refer to court congestion caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. Because
courts around the world have experienced such docket congestion, this
consideration does not support dismissal. The Milnes next assert that
because the long-term international assignment policy was created by
Weatherford Houston, Texans should bear the burden of jury duty. But
as we have explained, Weatherford Egypt’s local policies and practices
controlled how Milne’s medical information should have been handled,
so Egyptian citizens have a greater interest in this litigation than
Texans.
         Another public-interest consideration is what law governs the
case. The Restatement’s “most significant relationship” test directs this
analysis. Hughes Wood Prods., Inc. v. Wagner, 18 S.W.3d 202, 205 (Tex.
2000).    Factors to consider include “(1) the place where the injury
occurred; (2) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred;
(3) the residence, nationality, and place of business of the parties; and
(4) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is

                                    10
centered.” ENSCO Offshore Int’l Co., 311 S.W.3d at 928. All factors but
the third point to Egypt as the country whose law should apply as the
failure to disclose Milne’s condition occurred in Egypt and arose from
work to be performed in Egypt, and the third factor does not uniformly
favor Texas.   Thus, we conclude the balance of private and public
interests predominates in favor of dismissal.
      Sixth,   in   deciding   whether   dismissal   would    result   in
unreasonable duplication or proliferation of litigation, we note that the
life-insurance interpleader action Weatherford Houston initiated in
Texas is unrelated to the Milnes’ claims for wrongful death. Thus,
dismissal of the latter claims would not result in duplicative litigation
on the life-insurance issues. And as discussed above, dismissal of the
Milnes’ claims in Texas would allow them to bring claims for wrongful
death against Weatherford Houston as well as all potentially
responsible Egyptian persons and entities in a single Egyptian
proceeding.
      Although the Milnes have not filed any claims for wrongful death
in Egypt, they recognize their ability to do so. They also acknowledge
that such claims could be brought in their home countries of South
Africa and Scotland.    Regardless of whether the Milnes’ claims are
maintained in Texas or dismissed, the extent of duplicative litigation
lies in their hands. See Gen. Elec. Co., 271 S.W.3d at 693. Maintaining
the claims in Texas still leaves three additional forums open for the
Milnes to file suit—one of which they have explicitly reserved the right
to sue in. Dismissal narrows the forums to only three—Egypt, South
Africa, and Scotland. Because dismissal will not be the cause of any

                                   11
unreasonably duplicative litigation, the sixth factor weighs in favor of
dismissal.
       For these reasons, we conclude that all statutory factors weigh in
favor of the Milnes’ claims for wrongful death being heard in a forum
outside Texas, and the trial court clearly abused its discretion in denying
Weatherford Houston’s motion to dismiss those claims. See ENSCO
Offshore Int’l Co., 311 S.W.3d at 929. Accordingly, without hearing oral
argument, we conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus and
direct the trial court to dismiss the claims for wrongful death against
Weatherford Houston based on forum non conveniens. TEX. R. APP. P.
52.8(c). The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to do so.

OPINION DELIVERED: April 26, 2024

                                     12