Summary
noting that "a choice of law ruling has generally been considered as an incidental ruling for which there is an adequate remedy by appeal"
Summary of this case from In re Acad., Ltd.Opinion
NUMBER 13-16-00489-CV
02-07-2017
IN RE SERAFIN GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A CHAPO'S AUTO SALES
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) ("When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case," but when "denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so."); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
Relator Serafin Garcia, individually and d/b/a Chapo's Auto Sales filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on September 13, 2016. Through this original proceeding, relator seeks to compel the trial court to (1) vacate its order denying relator's motion to dismiss and plea to the jurisdiction, and (2) grant relator's plea to the jurisdiction and dismiss the case. In the underlying trial court proceeding in the 332nd District Court of Hidalgo County, real party in interest Jocelyn Kie has brought suit against relator for the wrongful death of her daughter, Eunice Shinette, resulting from a trucking accident that occurred in Louisiana. Relator contends that the trial court erred because Louisiana law applies to this tort case, and under Louisiana law, Kie does not have standing to pursue a wrongful death claim for her daughter. We requested and received a response to the petition for writ of mandamus from Kie and received a reply thereto from relator.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Mandamus relief is proper to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Christus Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). The relator bears the burden of proving both of these requirements. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d at 302; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Appellate courts may not deal with disputed areas of fact in original proceedings. In re Woodfill, 470 S.W.3d 473, 478 (Tex. 2015) (orig. proceeding); West v. Solito, 563 S.W.2d 240, 245 (Tex. 1978) (orig. proceeding).
An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court's ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable or is made without regard for guiding legal principles or supporting evidence. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 2012). Similarly, a trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to analyze or apply the law correctly. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d at 712; In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 226 S.W.3d 400, 403 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding).
Whether a clear abuse of discretion can be adequately remedied by appeal depends on a careful analysis of the costs and benefits of interlocutory review. In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458, 464 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). An appellate remedy is adequate when any benefits to mandamus review are outweighed by the detriments. In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). An appellate court should also consider whether mandamus will allow the court "to give needed and helpful direction to the law that would otherwise prove elusive in appeals from final judgments" and "whether mandamus will spare litigants and the public 'the time and money utterly wasted enduring eventual reversal of improperly conducted proceedings.'" In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (quoting In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136).
Determining which state's law governs an issue is a question of law we review de novo. See Hughes Wood Prods., Inc. v. Wagner, 18 S.W.3d 202, 204 (Tex. 2000); Torrington Co. v. Stutzman, 46 S.W.3d 829, 848 (Tex. 2000); Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 665 S.W.2d 414, 421 (Tex. 1984). We utilize the Restatement's "most significant relationship" test to decide issues pertaining to choice of law. Torrington Co., 46 S.W.3d at 848; see RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONFLICT OF LAWS §§ 6, 145 (1971); Hughes, 18 S.W.3d at 205. For cases involving torts, the "most significant relationship" test involves at least two levels of analysis. Ins. Co. of State of Pa. v. Neese, 407 S.W.3d 850, 853 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.). We first weigh the competing policy interests of the different jurisdictions as directed by section 6 of the Restatement. Id.; see Vanderbilt Mortg. & Fin., Inc. v. Posey, 146 S.W.3d 302, 314 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004, no pet.). Section 6 requires consideration of: (a) the needs of the interstate and international systems, (b) the relevant policies of the forum, (c) the relevant policies of other interested states and the relative interests of those states in the determination of the particular issue, (d) the protection of justified expectations, (e) the basic policies underlying the particular field of law, (f) certainty, predictability and uniformity of result, and (g) ease in the determination and application of the law to be applied. Ins. Co. of State of Pa., 407 S.W.3d at 853; see RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONFLICT OF LAWS § 6(2). We then apply the second level of analysis, which concerns the specific area of law applicable to the case. Ins. Co. of State of Pa., 407 S.W.3d at 853; Vanderbilt Mortg. & Fin., Inc., 146 S.W.3d at 314. In a tort case, such as the one under consideration here, section 145 lists four additional factual factors that we consider in our analysis, which include: (a) the place where the injury occurred, (b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred, (c) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and (d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered. Torrington Co., 46 S.W.3d at 848; see RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONFLICT OF LAWS § 145(2).
As a general rule, mandamus relief will not issue to correct an incidental trial court ruling, such as a plea to the jurisdiction, when there is a remedy by appeal. See In re Puig, 351 S.W.3d 301, 306 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding); In re Entergy Corp., 142 S.W.3d 316, 320 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); see also In re First Mercury Ins. Co., 437 S.W.3d 34, 38 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2014, orig. proceeding) (collecting cases). However, a remedy by appeal may be an inadequate remedy when there are "extraordinary circumstances" present. In re Bay Area Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, 982 S.W.2d 371, 375 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding); see, e.g., In re Puig, 351 S.W.3d at 306 (stating that mandamus is available to resolve a denial of a plea to the jurisdiction when one court actively interferes with the exercise of jurisdiction by a court possessing dominant jurisdiction); see also In re First Mercury Ins. Co., 437 S.W.3d at 38 (collecting cases). In this regard, a choice of law ruling has generally been considered as an incidental ruling for which there is an adequate remedy by appeal. See In re Celadon Trucking Servs., Inc., 162 S.W.3d 769 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2005, orig. proceeding); In re W. Aircraft, Inc., 2 S.W.3d 382, 384 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, orig. proceeding [mand. denied] ); Transportes Aereos Naclonales, S.A. v. Downey, 817 S.W.2d 393, 395 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, orig. proceeding [mand. dism'd] ); see also In re Gonzalez Trucking S.A. de C.V., No. 13-14-00222-CV, 2014 WL 2566318, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi May 30, 2014, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]) (mem. op.).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response, the reply, and the applicable law, and considering only that evidence that was properly before the trial court, is of the opinion that the relator failed to meet her burden to obtain mandamus relief. Accordingly, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus.
PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 7th day of February, 2017.