Opinion
No. 05-08-00570-CV
Opinion issued April 8, 2009.
On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. DC-07-05029.
Before Justices WRIGHT, O'NEILL, and LANG.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. appeals from a trial court's order declining to exercise jurisdiction and dismissing its claims. In a single issue, Kingvision contends the trial court erred in sua sponte dismissing the case on the ground of forum non conveniens. We sustain Kingvision's issue, reverse the trial court's order, and remand this case to the trial court.
Kingvision sued Javier A. Ibarra and Pablo Rodriguez for cable piracy in violation of federal law. Kingvision claimed that Ibarra and Rogriguez showed a closed-circuit telecast of a championship boxing event in their commercial establishment without first obtaining the right to do so from Kingvision. Kingvision simultaneously served the petition and discovery requests on Ibarra and Rodriguez. Although properly served, neither defendant filed an answer. Kingvision sought entry of a default judgment. The trial court entered an order denying the motion for default judgment. Kingvision filed a motion for reconsideration. Without conducting a hearing, the trial court signed an order on March 17, 2008 declining to exercise jurisdiction and dismissing the claims. In the order, the trial court made the following findings:
1. All viable causes of action asserted are based on alleged violation of federal law.
2. The Plaintiff is a Delaware limited partnership with a place of business located in Florida.
3. The event(s) giving rise to the Plaintiff's causes of action took place in Harris County, Texas. Specifically, it is the county in which the establishment where the alleged offense occurred is located. Additionally, the Defendants reside in and/or do business in Harris County, Texas.
4. The Texas Interception of Communication Act in Texas does not provide a cause of action under the facts pled by Plaintiff.
The Court being of the opinion that because of the absence of any significant connection between the occurrence giving rise to the cause of action, the parties, and Dallas County, a significant public interest exists in refusal to assert jurisdiction and 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, no localized interest involved, in State District Court and County Courts-at-Law in Dallas County.
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 have addressed this same issue in a case with very similar facts out of the same trial court in Garden City Boxing Club, Inc. v. 3425 Club, Inc., No. 05-08-00571-CV, slip op. at 3-4 (Tex.App. April 8, 2009, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). We held in Garden City Boxing Club that the trial court abused its discretion in sua sponte dismissing the case on the ground of forum non conveniens. We follow this Court's holding in that case.
We sustain Kingvisions's single issue, we reverse the trial court's order, and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.