» Texas Supreme Court Makes It Easier to Dismiss Lawsuits by Out of State Plaintiffs

Texas Supreme Court Makes It Easier to Dismiss Lawsuits by Out of State Plaintiffs

Gregory D. Jordan, an Austin business litigation attorney, offers insights regarding the Supreme Court of Texas ruling dated July 2, 2010, in the case of Quixtar, Inc. v. Signature Management Team LLC.

Austin, TX (Law Firm Newswire) July 13, 2010 - “The Quixtar case is important because it clarifies Texas law pertaining to whether a lawsuit can be dismissed for a lack of convenience,” asserts Austin business litigation attorney Gregory D.

Austin Business Litigation Lawyer and Employment Attorney, Gregory D. Jordan

Austin Business Litigation Lawyer and Employment Attorney, Gregory D. Jordan

Jordan. “The Court made it very clear that if you are sued by an out of state plaintiff, the trial court should afford substantially less deference to the plaintiff’s forum choice when the trial court is deciding whether to dismiss a suit on convenience grounds.” Mr. Jordan continues, “In my opinion, this case should make it much easier to convince a trial court to dismiss a lawsuit if the plaintiff is from out of state.”

In Quixtar, Inc. v. Signature Management Team LLC, the Texas Supreme Court addressed a situation where the trial court had dismissed a lawsuit filed in Collin County, Texas, between two Michigan businesses based on common law forum non conveniens. The Court of Appeals had reversed the dismissal, holding that the trial court abused its discretion. The appellate court noted that suit could have been filed in Michigan, but held that the defendant did not meet its burden to show that the private and public interest factors of the forum non conveniens analysis strongly weighed in favor of dismissing the suit filed in Texas. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed the suit.

Quixtar is a Virginia Corporation with a principal place of business in Michigan. Signature Management Team is a limited liability company organized in Nevada with a principal place of business in Michigan.

Quixtar, a successor to Amway, is a MLM (multi-level marketing) corporation that sells products through a network of individual business owners (IBOs), including some in Texas. Signature Management is a tools company that sells marketing tools, self-help books, seminars, and motivational speaker appearances to IBOs. Quixtar also owns a training system and sells similar tools to IBOs, making it a direct competitor to Signature Management. Quixtar alleged that Signature taught IBOs improper and potentially illegal business-building techniques that put Quixtar’s entire operation at risk.

To learn more, contact Austin employment lawyer and Austin business attorney, Gregory D. Jordan or visit http://www.theaustintriallawyer.com.

Law Offices of Gregory D. Jordan
5608 Parkcrest Drive, Suite 310
Austin, Texas 78731
Call: 512-419-0684

[mappress mapid="39"]

  • Texas appeals court rules on consent provision in oil lease case
    A Texas appeals court eliminated a $27.7 million judgment against an oil and gas company in a dispute over a drilling farmout agreement, ruling that the contract permitted the company to withhold consent to an assignment of the agreement. Carrizo Oil & Gas Inc. had appealed a jury verdict finding it liable for fraud, breach [...]
  • Texas telecommunications company sues Comcast claiming tortious interference
    A small Texas telecommunications company has filed a lawsuit against cable giant Comcast, alleging tortious interference with contract. In the lawsuit, Anthony Luna claims Comcast dug up and destroyed cables owned by his company, Telecom Cable. Luna alleges that Comcast workers cut cables and disrupted service to his customers in the Houston area. The complaint [...]
  • Texas appellate court rules against owner of royalty interest in fraudulent inducement lawsuit
    A Texas appellate court held that the owner of a royalty interest could not claim fraudulent inducement with regard to its settlement with a Shell Oil affiliate that operated the oil and gas property. In 2014, a Texas state court jury found that the Syrian American Oil Corp. (Samoco) was fraudulently induced into entering a [...]

See other news sources publishing this article. BETA | Tags: , , , , ,



Get headlines from Law Firm Newswire sent right to your inbox.

* indicates required