Forum Selection Clauses in Texas. David Coale and Casey Kaplan Wednesday, November 19, 2008. Basics. Presumptively valid.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
“To the extent that Defendant has asserted the forum selection clauses and confessions of judgment, it was represented to me by Defendant that the provision only applied to Schedule 1 of the financing, not Schedule 3, which is the one sued upon. I signed confession of judgment based upon that representation.”
In re Lyon Financial Services, 257 S.W.3d 228, 232 (Tex. 2008).
“[Plaintiff] does not have the financial or logistical ability to pursue its claims in Pennsylvania. Because Pennsylvania is so distant, if this Court required [Plaintiff] to pursue its claim there, MNI will be unable to pursue its rights – [Plaintiff] is a small, local business.”
Lyon, 257 S.W.3d at 233.
“If merely stating that financial and logistical difficulties will preclude litigation in another state suffices to avoid a forum-selection clause, the clauses are practically useless. Financial difficulties on behalf of one party or the other are typically part of the reason litigation begins.”
257 S.W.3d at 234.
“[Plaintiff] also claims that . . . Pennsylvania law does not allow a corporation to maintain a cause of action for usury.”
257 S.W.3d at 234.
In re Sterling Chemicals, 261 S.W.3d 805, 808 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2008)
“Each party hereby (a) irrevocably submits to the non-exclusive personal jurisdiction of any Texas state or federal court sitting in Harris County, Texas, over any claim or dispute arising out of or relating to this agreement . . . .”
261 S.W.3d at 809.
“[W]e cannot ignore an obvious inconsistency between two patently-unambiguous jurisdiction clauses.”
261 S.W.3d at 810 n.6.
Over dissent: “The granting of ADM’s motion to dismiss would have resulted in prejudice to Prescott because she would be required to try two suits involving the same facts and the same witnesses in two separate states, Texas and Illinois.”
In re ADM Investor Services, 257 S.W.3d 822 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2008).
“In the event that any dispute shall occur between the parties arising out of or resulting from the construction, interpretation, enforcement, or any other aspect of this Agreement, the parties hereby agree to accept the exclusive jurisdiction of any Court of competent jurisdiction sitting in and for the County of Dallas.”