In re Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC

• Decision Date: 24 April 2015
• Docket Number: No. 12–0946,12–0946
• Citation: In re Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, 459 S.W.3d 565 (Tex. 2015)
• Parties: In re Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, Relator
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

459 S.W.3d 565

In re Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, Relator

No. 12–0946

Supreme Court of Texas.

Argued November 5, 2014

OPINION DELIVERED: April 24, 2015

John B. Skaggs, Skaggs & Guerra, McAllen, for Real Party in InterestJaime Gutierrez, Individually and Doing Business as Gutierrez Auto Sales, Juan Gutierrez, Manuel Gutierrez, Gutierrez Brothers, Inc., d/b/a Gutierrez Auto Sales.

Larry W. Lawrence, Michael Lawrence, Lawrence Law Firm, Austin, for Real Party in InterestGilberto Rodriguez, as Next Friend of Elian Alvarado Rodriguez and Diego, Alvarado Rodriguez, minors, and the Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Maria Isabel Rodriguez and Armando Alvarado, Deceased.

Penelope E. Nicholson, Phillip Dye Jr., Vinson & Elkins LLP, Houston, Sandra Garza Rodriguez, Vinson & Elkins, L.L.P., Austin, Scott G. Edwards, Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP, Dallas, Thad Kingston Jenks, Harrison, Bettis, Staff, McFarland & Weems, LLP, Houston, Travis R. Wimberly, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Austin, for RelatorBridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC.

Opinion

Justice Lehrmanndelivered the opinion of the Court.

Before us once again is the Texas-resident exception to the forum-non-conveniens statute.We consider whether the exception—which allows a plaintiff residing in Texas to maintain a lawsuit here even when the suit would otherwise be subject to dismissal for forum non conveniens—applies in a case in which two nonresident minors sue by a next friend who is a Texas resident.The minors themselves reside in Mexico with their grandparents, who are the minors' legal guardians under Mexican law.We hold that the Texas-resident exception does not apply and that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to dismiss the case on forum-non-conveniens grounds.Accordingly, we conditionally grant mandamus relief.

I.Background

This case arises from a June 2009 car accident in Mexico.Armando Alvarado was driving a 1996Ford Explorer on a highway near Monterrey in the State of Nuevo Leon.His wife, Maria Isabel Rodriguez, and their two minor children were passengers.The Explorer's left rear tire allegedly failed, causing a rollover that killed Armando and Maria and injured the children.At the time of the accident, the family resided in Nuevo Leon.The children's maternal grandparents became the children's legal guardians by operation of Mexican law and took custody of the children in Nuevo Leon.

Gilberto Rodriguez, a Texas resident who is the children's maternal uncle, filed a wrongful-death lawsuit “as next friend” of the children in Hidalgo County, Texas, against Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC(Bridgestone), a Delaware company that manufactured the allegedly defective tire.Other defendants included Gutierrez Brothers, Inc., doing business as Gutierrez Auto Sales, and that company's individual owners, brothers Juan, Jaime, and Manuel Gutierrez.¹Gutierrez Auto Sales, which is in Hidalgo County, Texas, had purchased the used Explorer from a New Jersey Acura dealership through a New Jersey auction house on July 12, 2007.²Approximately two weeks later, Gutierrez Auto Sales sold the Explorer to wholesaler Librado Leal, a company based in Nuevo Leon, “For Export Only.”The accident occurred almost two years later.The record does not reflect when or where the tire at issue was put on the Explorer, and nothing in the record suggests that the tire was manufactured in Texas.

Bridgestone filed a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, arguing that the case belonged in Mexico, not Texas.The trial court denied the motion, and Bridgestone filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the court of appeals.In denying relief, the court of appeals held that the case may not be dismissed on forum-non-conveniens grounds because the plaintiff, next-friend Rodriguez, is a Texas resident.387 S.W.3d 840, 848(Tex.App.–Beaumont2012).Bridgestone now seeks mandamus relief in this Court, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Bridgestone's motion to dismiss.

II.Analysis

The doctrine of forum non conveniens, which originated in the common law and is now codified in Texas, “comes into play when there are sufficient contacts between the defendant and the forum state to confer personal jurisdiction upon the trial court, but the case itself has no significant connection to the forum.”In re Pirelli Tire, LLC,247 S.W.3d 670, 675–76(Tex.2007).Texas's forum-non-conveniens statute provides:

If a court of this state, on written motion of a party, finds that in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties a claim or action to which this section applies would be more properly heard in a forum outside this state, the court shall decline to exercise jurisdiction under the doctrine of forum non conveniens and shall stay or dismiss the claim or action.

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 71.051(b).³Notwithstanding this mandatory language, courts“may not stay or dismiss a plaintiff's claim [on forum-non-conveniens grounds] if the plaintiff is a legal resident of this state.”Id.§ 71.051(e).This so-called Texas-resident exception “ensure[s] access to Texas courts for Texas plaintiffs.”In re Ford Motor Co.,442 S.W.3d 265, 269(Tex.2014).

We have held that a trial court's erroneous denial of a forum-non-conveniens motion cannot be adequately remedied on appeal and therefore warrants mandamus relief.In re Gen. Elec. Co.,271 S.W.3d 681, 685(Tex.2008).We review the trial court's forum-non-conveniens ruling for an abuse of discretion.Id.

A.Application of the Texas–Resident Exception

When the Texas-resident exception outlined in subsection 71.051(e) applies, a case may not be dismissed on forum-non-conveniens grounds no matter how tenuous its connection to Texas.In this case, as discussed above, Texas resident Rodriguez brought a wrongful-death suit on behalf of two nonresident minors to recover damages for their parents' deaths.Rodriguez may not assert a personal cause of action under Texas's wrongful-death statute and has sued solely in his capacity as next friend of his nephews.SeeTex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 71.004(a)(“An action to recover damages as provided by [the wrongful-death statute] is for the exclusive benefit of the surviving spouse, children, and parents of the deceased.”).Bridgestone argues that Rodriguez's Texas residency does not foreclose dismissal for two reasons: (1) Rodriguez lacked authority to sue as the children's next friend because they had a legal guardian, and (2) even if the children could sue by next friend, a next friend is not a “plaintiff” whose residency may trigger the exception.We address these contentions in turn.

1.Next–Friend Representation

We first address whether Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 44 allowed the children to sue through a next friend.When we analyze Texas's procedural rules, we apply the same rules of construction that govern the interpretation of statutes.Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia,363 S.W.3d 573, 579(Tex.2012).That is, we look first to the rule's language and construe it according to its plain meaning.In re Christus Spohn Hosp. Kleberg,222 S.W.3d 434, 437(Tex.2007).At the same time, we bear in mind that the rules are given a liberal construction in order to obtain “a just, fair, equitable and impartial adjudication of the rights of litigants under established principles of substantive law.”Tex. R. Civ. P. 1.

Rule 44, which is derived from a statute that was originally enacted in 1893,⁴ governs the institution of suit by next friend and provides:

Minors ... who have no legal guardian may sue and be represented by “next friend” under the following rules:

(1) Such next friend shall have the same rights concerning such suits as guardians have, but shall give security for costs, or affidavits in lieu thereof, when required.

(2) Such next friend or his attorney of record may with the approval of the court compromise suits and agree to judgments, and such judgments, agreements and compromises, when approved by the court, shall be forever binding and conclusive upon the partyplaintiff in such suit.

Tex. R. Civ. P. 44.⁵The only other procedural rule to mention next friends is Rule 173, which requires the court to appoint a guardian ad litem for a party represented by a next friend or guardian if “the next friend or guardian appears to the court to have an interest adverse to the party” or if the parties agree.Tex. R. Civ. P. 173.2(a).Bridgestone argues that Rule 44's plain language allows suit by a next friend only when the minor has “no legal guardian” and that the minor plaintiffs in this case have legal guardians: their grandparents.

The parties do not dispute that, under the law of the State of Nuevo Leon where the children reside, the children's grandparents automatically became the children's legal guardians upon the death of their parents.⁶However, the court of appeals concluded that, because no Texas court had accepted the grandparents' guardianship established in Mexico, “the minors had no legal guardian in Texas,” and next-friend representation was appropriate under Rule 44. 387 S.W.3d at 846.Bridgestone contends that this interpretation improperly adds words to the rule and that “no legal guardian” means just that: “no legal guardian.”

Bridgestone's argument has appeal, but it leaves out a very important inquiry.The significance of a minor's having a legal guardian in the context of Rule 44 is that, when a minor already has a guardian who may sue on his behalf, the minor does not need next-friend representation in order to litigate his claims.For Rule 44 to make sense, it must be construed to enable minors to prosecute their claims—through a next friend—when they otherwise could not through a legal guardian.It follows that, if a legal guardian has been appointed or recognized in another jurisdiction, but that guardian lacks authority to sue on the minor's behalf in Texas and has no legal basis for obtaining such authority, the minor may sue by...