Opinion
No. 05-08-00571-CV
Opinion issued April 8, 2009.
On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. DC-07-07952.
Before Justices WRIGHT, O'NEILL, and LANG.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Garden City Boxing Club, Inc. appeals from a trial court's order declining to exercise jurisdiction and dismissing the case. In a single issue, Garden City Boxing Club contends the trial court erred in sua sponte dismissing the case on the ground of forum non conveniens. We sustain Garden City Boxing Club's issue, reverse the trial court's order, and remand this case to the trial court.
The history of this case is quite brief. Garden City Boxing Club sued 3425 Club, Inc. and Joel Guereca (collectively "3425 Club") for cable piracy in violation of federal law. Garden City Boxing Club claimed that 3425 Club showed a closed-circuit telecast of a championship boxing event in their commercial establishment without first obtaining the right to do so from Garden City Boxing Club.
Garden City Boxing Club simultaneously served the petition and discovery upon 3425 Club. Although 3425 Club was served, it did not file an answer. Garden City Boxing Club moved for entry of a default judgment. Without conducting a hearing, the trial court signed an order on March 17, 2008 declining to exercise jurisdiction and dismissing the claim. In the order, the trial court states that it considered the motion for default judgment and the petition. The trial court then made the following findings:
1. All causes of action asserted are based on an alleged violation of federal law.
2. The Plaintiff is a California corporation with a principal office and place of business located in California.
3. The event(s) giving rise to the Plaintiff's causes of action took place in Tarrant County, Texas. Specifically, it is the county in which the Defendant 3425 Club, Inc. and where the establishment at which the alleged offense took place are located. Additionally, the Defendant's registered agent for service of process is located in Tarrant County, Texas. Furthermore, the individual Defendant resides in and/or does business in Tarrant County, Texas.
The Court being of the opinion that the absence of any significant connection between the occurrence giving rise to the cause of action, the parties, and Dallas County, create a significant public interest in refusal to assert jurisdiction further finds:
1. Alternate forums exist in which the claim or action may be tried.
2. The alternate forums provide adequate remedy and in the case of the federal courts specialized expertise in the subject matter in issue.
3. The alternate forums can exercise jurisdiction over all parties.
4. The public interest in preserving limited judicial resources for redress of localized issues predominates in favor of the claim or action being brought in an alternate forum.
5. Dismissal would not result in unreasonable duplication or proliferation of litigation.
6. Counsel for Plaintiff has caused numerous like filings in State District Court and County Courts-at-Law in Dallas County with no localized interest involved.
The trial court's findings reveal that its decision not to exercise jurisdiction in this case was based on principles of forum non conveniens. We review a trial court's denial of jurisdiction based on forum non conveniens for an abuse of discretion. Lee v. Na, 198 S.W.3d 492, 495 (Tex.App. 2006, no pet.). A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or unreasonably, without reference to any guiding rules or principles. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex. 1985).
Pursuant to the equitable doctrine of forum non conveniens, a trial court may decline to impose an inconvenient forum on a litigant. Sarieddine v. Moussa, 820 S.W.2d 837, 839 (Tex.App. 1991, writ denied). The defendant bears the burden of invoking the doctrine and moving to dismiss in favor of an alternative forum. Id. at 841. To dismiss a case based on forum non conveniens, the trial court must determine that, for the convenience of the litigants and witnesses and in the interest of justice, the action should be pursued in another forum. Id. at 839. In making this determination, the trial court should consider a number of private and public factors, including: (1) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (2) the availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses; (3) the cost of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses; (4) the enforceability of any judgment entered; (5) the burden imposed on the citizens of the state and the trial court; and (6) the general interest in having localized controversies decided in the jurisdiction in which they arose. Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947); Sarieddine, 820 S.W.2d at 841. The record must contain evidence that allows a trial court to balance the forum non conveniens factors and determine whether they weigh strongly in favor of trying the case in another forum. Sarieddine, 820 S.W.2d at 842; Lee, 198 S.W.3d at 495.
Thus, before a trial court can dismiss a case on the basis of forum non conveniens, three requirements must be met: (1) the defendant must file a motion seeking dismissal in favor of an alternative forum; (2) the trial court must conduct a hearing; and (3) evidence must be presented at the hearing that allows the trial court to make a determination based on the forum non conveniens factors. See Sarieddine, 820 S.W.2d at 839-41. None of these requirements are met in this case. Club 3425 did not file a motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens, the trial court did not conduct a hearing, and there was no evidence from which the trial court could base its decision. In light of these facts, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the case based on forum non conveniens.
We sustain Garden City Boxing Club's sole issue. We reverse the trial court's order and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.