Summary
This memorandum opinion from the Thirteenth Court of Appeals of Texas reviews a trial court's denial of a motion to transfer venue in an underlying employment discrimination and defamation lawsuit. The appellate court examines mandatory venue statutes regarding injunctions and defamation, determining that injunctive relief was ancillary rather than dominant, and finding that the relators sufficiently denied the plaintiff's venue facts. The court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus to transfer the case to Tarrant County.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether venue is proper in Hidalgo County under Texas Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 15.002(a)(1) and 15.017.
- Whether mandatory venue under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 65.023(a) requires venue in Tarrant County.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to transfer venue, justifying mandamus relief.
Holdings
- Venue is mandatory in Tarrant County under § 15.017 because the defendants are domiciled there; therefore the trial court erred in finding venue proper in Hidalgo County.
- Section 65.023(a) does not apply because the plaintiff’s injunctive relief claim is not the dominant purpose of the suit.
- The trial court abused its discretion; mandamus relief is granted, the November 13, 2024 order is vacated in part, and the case is transferred to Tarrant County.
Key quotations
“Mandamus is intended for use in circumstances “involving manifest and urgent necessity.” Elec. Reliability Council of Tex., Inc. v. Panda Power Generation Infrastructure Fund, LLC, 619 S.W.3d 628, 641 (Tex. 2021).”
“Venue is proper in Hidalgo County under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 15.002(a)(1) and § 15.017 due to substantial connections to the events giving rise to the claims and Martin’s residence at the time of the accrual of the cause of action.”
Factual background
Billy Tom Martin was employed by Baseline Energy Services, LP as an inventory coordinator, suffered a work‑related back injury, requested a temporary work‑from‑home accommodation, and was subsequently terminated. Martin filed a lawsuit alleging disability discrimination, workers’ compensation retaliation, and libel, asserting that the events giving rise to his claims occurred in Hidalgo County. Relators moved to transfer venue to Tarrant County, asserting their domicile there and arguing mandatory venue statutes applied.
Procedural history
The trial court in County Court at Law No. 10, Hidalgo County denied relators' motion to transfer venue and a motion for continuance. Relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging that order. The Court of Appeals reviewed the petition and issued this memorandum opinion.
Remand instructions
Vacate the trial court's November 13, 2024 order denying the motion to transfer venue and transfer the suit to Tarrant County.