Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The trial court denied a motion to enforce a contractual agreement requiring the parties to litigate all disputes in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Professional Systems Corp., a Pennsylvania corporation, sued Automated Collection Technologies, Inc., a Texas corporation, alleging failure to pay for services rendered pursuant to a written contract. Despite the forum provision, PSC sued Automated in Dallas County, Texas, Automated’s principal place of business. After a hearing at which no evidence was introduced by either party, the trial court denied Automated’s motion to dismiss without stating its reasons, but a docket sheet entry notes “waiver found.” The court of appeals denied Automated’s petition for writ of mandamus, and Automated seeks mandamus relief from this court. HOLDING:Conditionally granted. In In Re: AIU Insurance Co., ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. 2004), the court held that enforcement of forum-selection clauses is mandatory unless the party opposing enforcement “clearly show[s] that enforcement would be unreasonable and unjust, or that the clause was invalid for such reasons as fraud or overreaching.” PSC has not sustained its burden. PSC submitted no evidence showing that enforcement of the clause would be unreasonable or unjust and does not assert that the clause is invalid. The trial court was therefore required to enforce the forum-selection clause. Because the court failed to do so, mandamus relief is warranted, the court concludes. Automated did not waive enforcement of the forum-selection clause by seeking affirmative relief on the underlying contract and by participating in the underlying litigation. In AIU, this court addressed a similar waiver argument and concluded that a delay of five months in seeking enforcement of a forum-selection clause along with requesting a jury trial, paying the jury fee, and filing a general denial that did not raise the forum selection issue were not sufficient to waive the forum-selection clause under consideration in that case. The court relied on cases concerning waiver in the arbitration context, which were found to be analogous. PSC asserts that “[t]he parties have spent significant time and resources litigating this dispute . . . [and] [a] dismissal would result only in duplication of time and resources that are unnecessary.” But this does not establish that PSC has been prejudiced by Automated’s participation in the underlying litigation and four-month delay in seeking enforcement of the forum-selection clause. Moreover, PSC chose to initiate proceedings in a forum other than the one to which it contractually agreed and cannot complain about any duplication of time or efforts that resulted from that choice. OPINION:Per curiam. Medina, J., did not participate.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.