Barnette v. United Research Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 30 December 1991
• Docket Number: No. 05-91-00228-CV,05-91-00228-CV
• Citation: 823 S.W.2d 368
• Parties: W. Howell BARNETTE, Appellant, v. UNITED RESEARCH COMPANY, INC., Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 368

823 S.W.2d 368

W. Howell BARNETTE, Appellant, v. UNITED RESEARCH COMPANY, INC., Appellee.

No. 05-91-00228-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas Dallas.

Dec. 30, 1991.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 10, 1992.

David K. Watsky, Hal K. Gillespie, Dallas, for appellant.

William C. Strock, John DeSteiguer, Frank Careri, Jr., Dallas, for appellee.

Before ENOCH, C.J., and BAKER and BURNETT, JJ.

OPINION

ENOCH, Chief Justice.

W. Howell Barnette appeals the trial court's order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Original Petition Without Prejudice. In three points of error, Barnette asserts that the trial court erred because: (1) the forum selection clause in Barnette's employment contract is unenforceable; (2) the forum selection clause is inapplicable since Barnette's claims are outside the four corners of the employment contract; and (3) it improperly ruled that New Jersey law shall apply to his employment contract. We overrule Barnette's first and second points, and sustain his third point. We modify the judgment of the district court to delete its ruling that his employment contract shall be governed, interpreted and enforced under the laws of New Jersey. In all other respects, we affirm.

FACTS

On May 26, 1987, Barnette entered into an employment agreement with United Research Company, Inc. ("URC"). Barnette was to serve as a management consultant in return for an annual compensation of approximately $90,000. They entered into a second employment agreement in April, 1989. Both agreements were to "be governed, interpreted, and enforceable pursuant to the laws of the State of New Jersey," and additionally, provided that "the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey or the Superior Court of New Jersey" would be used to resolve disputes between the parties.

Barnette was terminated as an employee in September, 1989. In July, 1990, he sued URC in a Texas district court for (1) wrongful termination; (2) unlawful age discrimination; (3) intentional infliction of severe emotional distress; (4) fraudulent inducement to accept employment; and (5) detrimental reliance. URC filed a motion to dismiss and an answer containing a general denial, a special exception to Barnette's alleged failure "to set forth the nature and the amount of damages which he seeks to recover," and asserting affirmative defenses. Pursuant to URC's motion to dismiss, the district court entered an order stating "(1) that any lawsuit brought between Plaintiff and Defendant pertaining to Plaintiff's employment by Defendant must be instituted in a state or federal court in New Jersey; and (2) that these employment contracts shall be governed, interpreted and enforced under New Jersey law."

THE FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE

In his first point of error, Barnette contends that the trial court erred in dismissing his case because the forum selection clause in his employment contract is unenforceable for public policy reasons. To support his argument, Barnette cites Fidelity Union Life Ins. Co. v. Evans, 477 S.W.2d 535 (Tex.1972), International Travelers' Ass'n v. Branum, 109 Tex. 543, 212 S.W. 630 (1919), and Dowling v. NADW Marketing, Inc., 578 S.W.2d 475 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Barnette incorrectly relies on these cases.

In both Evans and Branum, the Supreme Court of Texas held that contracts could not contain venue provisions in contravention of venue statutes. Evans, 477 S.W.2d at 537 (injunction suit must be brought in county provided for by venue statute, and not county provided for by venue provision in insurance contract); Branum, 212 S.W. at 631-32 (suit to recover accidental death proceeds must be brought in county provided for by venue statute, and not county provided for by venue provision in insurance contract). In Dowling, the Eastland Court of Appeals held that the venue provision in a contract did not govern in a suit alleging deceptive trade practices and fraud, noting: "Like provisions have been declared invalid in Texas." Dowling, 578 S.W.2d at 475 (citing Evans and Branum ). All three cases rely, in part, on the following language in Branum:

We are convinced that it is utterly against public policy to permit bargaining in this state about depriving courts of jurisdiction, expressly conferred by statute, over particular causes of action and defenses. It follows that the stipulation for exclusive venue in Dallas county will not be enforced....

Branum, 212 S.W. at 632 (citation omitted).

Barnette urges that public policy also prohibits enforcement of forum selection clauses in Texas. We disagree. When a party contractually consents to the jurisdiction of a particular forum, jurisdiction necessarily depends on the validity of the contract. Monesson v. National Equip. Rental, 594 S.W.2d 780, 781 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.). And, if a party consents to New Jersey jurisdiction, New Jersey has jurisdiction over that party. See Monesson, 594 S.W.2d at 781 (defendant, in guaranty clause, consented to litigate disputes in New York and New York court properly exercised jurisdiction under New York law); A & S Distribution Co. v. Providence Pile Fabric Corp., 563 S.W.2d 281, 284 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (defendant voluntarily agreed to submit disputes arising from a contract to...