Dixon v. Tse Intern. Inc., 02-40858. Summary Calendar.
| Decision Date | 21 May 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 02-40858. Summary Calendar.,02-40858. Summary Calendar. |
| Citation | 330 F.3d 396 |
| Parties | Raymond DIXON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TSE INTERNATIONAL INC., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
James Kevin Dutton, The Tonahill Firm, Jasper, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael Beatty Donald, Lemle, Kelleher, Barlow & Hardtner, Shreveport, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
The sole issue in this appeal is whether the contract entered into by the plaintiff, Raymond Dixon, and the defendant, TSE International, waived TSE's right to remove this suit to federal court. The district court concluded that it did, and we agree.
On January 10, 2002, Dixon, a Texas resident, filed suit against TSE, a Louisiana corporation, in the district court of San Augustine County, Texas. The petition asserted claims for breach of contract, fraud, and misrepresentation concerning royalties allegedly due from the sale of a certain Tree Trimmer product sold by TSE.
On February 13, 2002, TSE removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Shortly thereafter, Dixon filed a motion to remand, arguing that TSE was contractually bound to have the dispute litigated in Texas state court. The district court interpreted the contractual provision cited by Dixon and agreed, finding that per the contract TSE had waived its rights to defend suit in federal court.
Neither party disputes that the contract on which the suit is based is an October 31, 1986 Technical Information and Patent License Agreement entered into by Dixon and TSE. The section of the contract in dispute provides:
This Agreement shall be deemed to be made in Texas, U.S.A., and shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas, U.S.A., as if it were made and wholly performed there[;] provided, however, that all questions concerning the construction and effect of PATENTS shall be governed by the laws of the country where the PATENT is issued. The Courts of Texas, U.S.A., shall have jurisdiction over all controversies with respect to the execution, interpretation or performance of this Agreement, and the parties waive any other venue to which they may be entitled by virtue of domicile or otherwise.
The district court held that this contractual provision required remand because it mandated that all disputes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Wiggains v. Reed (In re Wiggains)
-
Firefighters' Ret. Sys. v. Consulting Grp. Servs., LLC
...however, is not required to contain explicit words such as “waiver of right of removal.” Waters, supra ; Dixon v. TSE Intern. Inc., 330 F.3d 396 (5th Cir.2003)(per curiam). A party may waive its removal rights by explicitly stating that it is doing so, by allowing the other party the right ......
-
Firefighters' Ret. Sys. v. Consulting Grp. Servs., LLC
...however, is not required to contain explicit words such as "waiver of right of removal." Waters, supra; Dixon v. TSE Intern. Inc., 330 F.3d 396 (5th Cir. 2003)(per curiam). A party may waive its removalrights by explicitly stating that it is doing so, by allowing the other party the right t......
- Wiggains v. Reed (In re Wiggains)