Forum and Venue

Problem

Venue and forum non conveniens laws that allow cases to be brought in jurisdictions that have little or no relation to the defendant or the act giving rise to the cause of action facilitate forum shopping.  Forum shopping is a term that describes the actions by some personal injury lawyers of filing their cases in pro-plaintiff jurisdictions, where the fundamental concept of “equal justice under law” does not apply.  ATRA calls these jurisdictions “judicial hellholes.”  

ATRA's Position:

ATRA supports venue reform that requires plaintiffs to bring their cases where they live or where they were injured, or where the defendant’s principal place of business is located.  ATRA supports forum non conveniens reform that ousts a case brought in one jurisdiction where the plaintiff lives elsewhere, the injury arose elsewhere, and the facts of the case and witnesses are located elsewhere. By strengthening the rules governing venue and forum non conveniens, both legislatures (who pass the rules) and courts (who apply the rules) can ensure that the cases are heard in a court that has a logical connection to the claim, rather than a court that will produce the highest award for the plaintiff.  


Opposition Opinion:

The personal injury bar’s argument against venue and forum reform – that a plaintiff should be able to file a lawsuit in the jurisdiction of her choice – fails to address the hardship faced by defendants who are required to appear in courtrooms in jurisdictions with no logical connection to the claim, where the fundamental concept of “equal justice under law” may not apply. 

Forum Non Conveniens: H.B. 755 (2005)

Texas|2005

Restored the discretion of trial court judges to dismiss lawsuits

[…]

Restored the discretion of trial court judges to dismiss lawsuits with little or no connection to Texas under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine: SB 15 (2005).

Texas|2005

Restores the discretion of trial court judges to dismiss lawsuits

[…]

Restores the discretion of trial court judges to dismiss lawsuits with little or no connection to Texas under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.


[hide]

Venue Reform: HB 4 (2003).

Texas|2003

Provides that every plaintiff must establish venue independently of every

[…]

Provides that every plaintiff must establish venue independently of every other plaintiff.  Mandates dismissal or transfer of any plaintiff who cannot establish venue except upon exception showing.  Provides for interlocutory de novo appellate review of order granting or denying transfer or dismissal.  Contains a forum non conveniens clause that states that the court must decline jurisdiction if there is a better forum for the suit.


[hide]

Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine: SB 220 (1997).

Texas|1997

Restores the common-law doctrine of forum non conveniens to allow

[…]

Restores the common-law doctrine of forum non conveniens to allow the court to decline to exercise jurisdiction in an action or claim for personal injury or wrongful death that arose outside of the state.


[hide]

Challenged and Upheld

Owens Corning v. Carter, 997 S.W.2d 560 (Tex.).

Venue Reform: SB 32 (1995).

Texas|1995

Allows a plaintiff to bring a lawsuit where the injury

[…]

Allows a plaintiff to bring a lawsuit where the injury occurred, where the defendant resides, or (if none of those apply) where the plaintiff resided when the injury or harm occurred.


[hide]

Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine: SB 2 (1993).

Texas|1993

Reinstates the forum non conveniens doctrine, which permits a court

[…]

Reinstates the forum non conveniens doctrine, which permits a court to decline to hear a case if justice would be better served by trying the case elsewhere.


[hide]