Court Opinion

ID: 9619343
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:26:45.48395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:29.767922
License: Public Domain

DON BURGESS, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur in the affirmation as to B.A.T. However, unlike the majority, I would decide the issue on the basis of no minimum contacts and not reach the “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” issue.
I respectfully dissent to the other portion of the opinion. The majority correctly limits their analysis to the first five Guardian Royal factors1 and so shall I.
The Burden on Defendants2
As to the first factor, they conclude: “The burden on defendants of litigating this case in Texas does not by itself preclude the exercise of jurisdiction.” This implies there is a burden and I do not accept that implication. I do, however, agree with their conclusion regarding factor one.
*505Interests of the Forum State
Regarding factor two, the majority states: “We agree Texas does not appear to have an interest in adjudicating this specific dispute ...” Obviously, I disagree. To borrow a phrase from appellants, “this case has no center of gravity.” PMI was incorporated in Virginia and has its principal place of business in New York. RJR was incorporated in New Jersey and has its principal place of business in North Carolina. B & W was incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Kentucky. Lorillard was incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in North Carolina. There is no single state that has a greater interest than any other, including Texas.3
Rio’s Interest in Obtaining Convenient and Effective Relief
The majority concludes: “But the disadvantages of a foreign judicial system, coupled with the decision by some defendants to not challenge jurisdiction in Texas, does not mean the most convenient and effective relief is to be found in Texas, [citations omitted.] Other states — where the companies are incorporated, headquartered, or have a manufacturing or research facility — offer convenient and effective relief.” The majority does not even analyze this factor utilizing the subtitle. The analysis under this factor is the plaintiffs — Rio’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief. This court stated in E.I. Du-Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Bailey, 986 S.W.2d 82, 84-85 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1999, pet dism’d w.o.j):
The plaintiffs chose Texas as their forum; therefore, we can presume they do not find it inconvenient or ineffective.
DuPont claims discovery will be “more convenient” for the plaintiffs if trial is had in Alabama. The issue is not one of more or less convenience — that is a forum non conveniens argument over which we do not have jurisdiction. Also, we would not presume to decide for the plaintiffs what is convenient for them.
This is the correct focus, the convenience to the plaintiff, not general convenience. As in Bailey, this court should not presume to decide what is convenient for the plaintiffs.
Interstate Judicial System’s Interest in Obtaining the Most Efficient Resolution
Here the majority simply concludes: “Based on this record, we do not find the interstate system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of the case is served by litigating these claims in Texas.” Again, I disagree.
Three defendants, Joseph Dobbs, Brooke Groups Ltd., and Liggett Group, Inc. did not file a special appearance in the trial court; consequently, the case against these defendants will proceed in Texas. Again, as explained in Bailey,
The interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution, the fourth factor, is clearly best served in Texas. There are other defendants, properly under Texas jurisdiction, included in the suit. It is surely most efficient to conduct only one trial where possible. Texas is a forum where the claims against all the defendants can properly be brought; conducting separate lawsuits would instead run counter to judicial economy and would not further the interest of the interstate judicial system in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies.
986 S.W.2d at 85.
I see no reason to retreat from our prior reasoning.
*506Shared Interest of States in Furthering Substantial Social Policies
The majority analyzes this factor with four sentences. The first two state Rio’s position while the last two:
But the states where the defendants are incorporated, have their principal places of business, or have manufacturing or research facilities have a direct interest in any substantive law associated with this lawsuit. Defendants use other states as home in the conduct of their business and those states have a strong interest in governing the conduct of their residents.
simply state the obvious. Nowhere in their analysis does the majority even identify the fundamental substantial social policies implicated in this case, much less show how any other states’ interest in furthering these social policies is any greater than that of Texas. See General Refractories Co. v. Martin, 8 S.W.3d 818, 828-824 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2000, pet denied).
Conclusion
Our Supreme Court said it best in Guardian Royal:
Only in rare cases, however, will the exercise of jurisdiction not comport with fair play and substantial justice when the nonresident defendant has purposefully established minimum contacts with the forum state. See Burger King, 471 U.S. at 477-78, 105 S.Ct. at 2185; see also Schlobohm, 784 S.W.2d at 358 (“it has become less likely that the exercise of jurisdiction will fail a fair play analysis.”) The stringent standard to be applied is set forth in Burger King:
[Wjhere a defendant who purposefully has directed his activities at forum residents seeks to defeat jurisdiction, he must present a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable ....
815 S.W.2d at 231.
This court followed this analysis in Bailey, 986 S.W.2d at 83-84, and should follow it in this case. This is not the rare case required by Guardian Royal nor did the defendants make a compelling case as required by Burger King. This court should reverse the trial court’s granting of the special appearances of the PMI, B & W, RJR and Lorillard’s defendants. Because they do not, I respectfully dissent.

. These are (1) “the burden on the defendant,” (2) the interests of the forum state in adjudicating the dispute, (3) "the plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief,” (4) “the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies,” and (5) “the shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.” Guardian Royal Exchange Assur., Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.C., 815 S.W.2d 223, 228 (Tex. 1991).

. I will use the same subtitles as the majority.

. It is common knowledge the State of Texas was a leader in litigation against major tobacco manufacturers and achieved a significant settlement with those manufacturers.