Maria Granados, a legal resident of Alabama and a Mexican citizen, died when a bus crashed near San Luis Potosí, Mexico, on the last leg of a trip from Alabama to Salvatierra. Her son bought the ticket from Greyhound Lines, Inc., a Delaware corporation headquartered in Dallas, which sold tickets in a commissions arrangement with the Mexican carrier Estrella Blanca, whose employee drove the bus and fled after the crash; Mexican police and a San Luis Potosí prosecutor investigated.¹

Family members sued Greyhound, Estrella Blanca and the driver in Dallas County for breach of contract, fraud, negligence, and wrongful death; Greyhound alone appeared and moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens, stipulating that it would submit to Mexican jurisdiction and waive limitations. The trial court denied the motion, finding Mexican courts neither available nor adequate, and the court of appeals denied mandamus. The Court decided the petition per curiam without oral argument.¹

Original proceeding (petition for writ of mandamus) after the court of appeals denied relief; decided per curiam without oral argument under Rule 52.8(c).²

Whether all six § 71.051(b) factors required dismissal in favor of a Mexican forum, and whether Greyhound judicially admitted Texas was a proper forum or waived its motion by crossclaiming against Estrella Blanca.¹

Mandamus is available when the trial court denies a forum non conveniens motion and all statutory factors favor dismissal; neither party bears the burden and the decision rests on the greater weight of the evidence, and foreign-law determinations are reviewed de novo.¹

Greyhound (Relator): a Mexican forum is available and adequate, nearly all evidence and witnesses are in Mexico, and Mexican law governs.

Granados family (Real Parties in Interest): Mexican courts are unavailable and inadequate given limitations, the driver's absence and the amparo procedure, corporate witnesses are in Dallas, and Greyhound admitted Texas venue and waived the motion by crossclaiming.¹

Not applicable to the Court's decision; the opinion does not recite the petition's cert-worthiness arguments.

None noted

Holding

The trial court abused its discretion in denying dismissal because every statutory factor favors a Mexican forum, and the case should be dismissed subject to Greyhound's stipulations and any further conditions the trial court sets.¹

Reasoning

Mexico is an available forum because the defendants are amenable to process, as in Pirelli and Bridgestone, and the plaintiffs' expert's driver-as-necessary-party claim rested on case summaries that do not say so; the plaintiffs' unwillingness to litigate there does not matter. Mexico is adequate because it does not provide "no remedy at all," and the lack of punitive damages, jury trial, discovery tools, or the amparo procedure are lesser differences. Substantial injustice and private interests favor Mexico because most witnesses are there beyond Texas compulsory process and Greyhound must be able to refute the reports; the public interest and choice-of-law under the Restatement's most-significant-relationship test point to Mexican law. There is no unreasonable duplication, and Greyhound's timely motion is not penalized by litigation progress. Greyhound's crossclaim statements were about indemnity, not forum, and preserving an alternative crossclaim is not substantial invocation of the judicial process.²

Disposition

Mandamus conditionally granted; the trial court is ordered to vacate its order denying the motion and dismiss the claims against Greyhound, subject to its stipulations and any additional terms the trial court sets, with the writ to issue only if it does not comply; the stay is lifted.³

Vote Breakdown

Per curiam opinion.⁴