IN THE SUPREME = COURT OF TEXAS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

════════&#= 9552;═══

No. 04-1129

════════λ= 2;═══

In re Pirelli = Tire, L.L.C.,=20 Relator

════════λ= 2;══════════&= #9552;═════════_= 52;══════════= ══════════ = 552;═

On Petition for Writ of = Mandamus

════════&#= 9552;═════════λ= 2;══════════&= #9552;═════════_= 52;══════════= ══

Argued November=20 29, 2005

Justice O=92Neill announced = the Court=92s=20 disposition and delivered an opinion joined by Justice Hecht, Justice = Brister, and=20 Justice Medina.

Justice Willett delivered a = concurring=20 opinion joined as to Part I by Justice=20 Wainwright.

Justice Johnson delivered a = dissenting=20 opinion joined by Chief Justice = Jefferson.

Justice Green did not = participate in the=20 decision.

In = this case,=20 we consider the limits of a trial court=92s broad discretion when = deciding whether=20 to dismiss on forum-non-conveniens grounds an action brought by a = claimant who=20 is not a legal resident of the United States. We conclude = that,=20 though by its terms the forum-non-conveniens = statute=20 is permissive, the deference it affords trial courts is not without = bounds. As=20 with other discretionary rulings, a trial court abuses its discretion if = its=20 forum-non-conveniens ruling is arbitrary,=20 unreasonable, and without reference to guiding principles. In this case, = absent=20 any significant connection between the incident and the Texas forum, = and=20 considering the private and public interests involved, we hold that the = trial=20 court clearly abused its discretion in denying the defendant=92s motion = to dismiss=20 based on forum non conveniens.

I. Background

=20 Valentin Hernandez Aran and Juan Benitez Mendoza, both Mexican = citizens, were=20 transporting a heavy load of seafood in a fourteen-year-old GMC pickup = on a=20 Mexican highway when the truck rolled over, killing Aran. The accident report filed by the Mexican = police=20 indicates that Aran was driving, but in = light of=20 evidence indicating Aran did not know how to = drive the=20 parties speculate that Mendoza, who was not present when the police = arrived, may=20 have been driving the truck when it rolled over and subsequently fled = the scene.=20 According to the report, the truck was speeding on a level two-lane road = when=20 the right rear tire failed and the truck rolled over.

=20 R. Garza Motors of Brownsville, Texas, purchased the truck two = years=20 before the accident at an auction in Arkansas. Eleven days after the = purchase,=20 Garza Motors in Cameron = County sold the truck to a Mexican citizen, = who=20 imported it into Mexico the same day. The = truck was=20 used, maintained, and serviced in Mexico from the time it was = sold by=20 Garza Motors until the date of the accident. The tire which allegedly = failed was=20 manufactured by Pirelli Tire in Des=20 Moines, Iowa, = in March=20 1994. Pirelli is incorporated in Delaware, and=20 its principal place of business is Georgia.

=20 In March 2003, Aran=92s wife, Maria = Magdalena=20 Meza Aran, his son, Damian Hernandez Meza, = and later=20 his mother, Felipa Aran=20 Limas (collectively =93the Arans=94), all = citizens of=20 Mexico, sued Pirelli in Cameron County. They alleged that Pirelli = negligently=20 designed and manufactured the tire, and also asserted strict liability = claims.[1] Less than a month later, = Pirelli filed=20 its Original Answer, as well as a Motion to Dismiss on Grounds of Forum = Non=20 Conveniens. In March 2004, Pirelli filed an = expanded=20 Motion to Dismiss on Grounds of Forum Non Conveniens=20 and a Motion to Apply the Law of Mexico. The trial court denied = Pirelli=92s=20 motions, and the court of appeals denied mandamus relief. We granted = oral=20 argument on Pirelli=92s Petition for Writ of Mandamus to consider the = parameters=20 of the trial court=92s discretion in deciding the dismissal motion.

II. Timeliness of Pirelli=92s Motion

=20 As a threshold matter, the Arans = contend the=20 trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to = dismiss=20 because Pirelli=92s motion was untimely under subsection (d) of the=20 forum-non-conveniens statute, section 71.051 = of the=20 Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code,[2] enacted by Act of May = 29, 1997,=20 75th Leg., R.S., ch. 424, =A7 1, 1997 Tex. = Gen. Laws=20 1680, 1680. Under that provision, a request for a stay or dismissal on=20 forum-non-conveniens grounds must be filed = within 180=20 days of the time for filing a motion to transfer venue. The Arans acknowledge that Pirelli filed a motion to = dismiss=20 concurrently with its answer, but they maintain that motion was = inadequate=20 because it consisted of only three paragraphs and contemplated that = Pirelli=20 would later file a supplemental brief more fully explaining Pirelli=92s=20 contentions. In contesting the timeliness of Pirelli=92s motion, the = Arans focus solely on the expanded motion to = dismiss that=20 Pirelli filed in February 2004, well after the time allowed under = section=20 71.051(d) had expired.

=20 We disagree that Pirelli=92s motion to dismiss was untimely. It = is=20 undisputed that Pirelli apprised the trial = court of its=20 claim that Cameron=20 County was an = inappropriate=20 forum within the time allowed under section 71.051(d). Pirelli=92s = original=20 dismissal motion contended Cameron=20 County had no connection with = the=20 accident, Mexico was a more = appropriate forum,=20 Mexican law provided the Arans an adequate = remedy, and=20 the balance of public and private interests weighed in favor of = dismissal.=20 Pirelli=92s second motion merely expanded on those contentions and = identified=20 specific events and circumstances supporting them. That Pirelli later=20 supplemented its initial argument is entirely consistent with section = 71.051(d),=20 which allows a trial court to rule on a forum-non-conveniens motion only after a hearing with at = least=20 twenty-one days=92 notice to the parties. The statute further requires = the court=20 to provide the parties =93ample opportunity=94 to obtain discovery = relevant to the=20 motion prior to the hearing. Thus, the statute contemplates that a = motion may be=20 filed and then supplemented in light of discovery. Pirelli=92s motion = was not=20 untimely.

III. The Forum-Non-Conveniens=20 Statute

A. Trial Court Discretion

=20 Section 71.051 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code governs = motions to=20 dismiss based on forum non conveniens. = Subsection (a)=20 governs suits, like this one, brought by claimants who are not legal = residents=20 of the United=20 States. It provides:

With=20 respect to a plaintiff who is not a legal resident of the United States, = if a=20 court of this state, on written motion of a party, finds that in the = interest of=20 justice a claim or action to which this section applies would be more = properly=20 heard in a forum outside this state, the court may decline to exercise=20 jurisdiction under the doctrine of forum non conveniens and may stay or dismiss the claim or = action in=20 whole or in part on any conditions that may be just.

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.=20 Code =A7=20 71.051(a). = =20

=20 Pirelli contends a trial court=92s discretion to dismiss on = forum-non-conveniens grounds =93in the interest of = justice=94 is not=20 unfettered. Citing our decision in In re=20 Smith Barney, 975 S.W.2d 593, 598 (Tex.=20 1998), Pirelli argues dismissal is warranted when an action has no = significant=20 connection with Texas. Pirelli further contends that = the=20 factors listed in section 71.051(b) of the forum-non-conveniens statute, which apply to cases brought = by=20 claimants who are legal residents of the United = States,=20 should guide a court in determining whether a case will be dismissed = under=20 subsection (a). Those factors are whether:

(1) an alternate forum exists in which the claim or = action may be=20 tried;

(2) the alternate forum provides an adequate = remedy;

(3) maintenance of the claim or action in the courts of = this=20 state would work a substantial injustice to the moving party;

(4) the alternate forum, as a result of the submission = of the=20 parties or otherwise, can exercise jurisdiction over all the defendants = properly=20 joined to the plaintiff's claim;

(5) the=20 balance of the private interests of the parties and the public interest = of the=20 state predominate in favor of the claim or action being brought in an = alternate=20 forum; and

(6) the stay or dismissal would not result in = unreasonable=20 duplication or proliferation of litigation.

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.=20 Code =A7 = 71.051(b).[3]

=20 The Arans, on the other hand, contend = section=20 71.051(a) confers virtually unlimited discretion on the trial court to = decide=20 whether a motion to dismiss should be granted on forum-non-conveniens grounds because the trial court=92s = authority is=20 described in permissive terms. According to the Arans,=20 a reviewing court may reverse a decision denying a motion to dismiss = under=20 section 71.051(a) only if the underlying suit has no connection with the = forum=20 whatsoever. Because the truck involved in this case was in Texas for = eleven days and=20 was sold here, the Arans contend, we have no = choice=20 but to sustain the trial court=92s decision. We disagree.

=20 While application of the forum-non-conveniens=20 doctrine is now codified in Texas, the doctrine has deep roots = in the=20 common law. As in section 71.051(a), the common-law doctrine permitted a = court=20 possessing jurisdiction over a dispute to decline to exercise it when, = =93=91for the=20 convenience of the litigants and witnesses and in the interest of = justice, the=20 action should be instituted in another forum.=92=94 Exxon Corp. v. = Choo, 881 S.W.2d 301, 302 n.2 (Tex. 1994) = (quoting Sarieddine v. Moussa, 820 S.W.2d 837, 839-40 (Tex. = App.=97Dallas 1991,=20 writ denied)). The doctrine of forum non conveniens=20 has always afforded great deference to the plaintiff=92s forum choice. = Flaiz v. Moore, 359 S.W.2d 872, 874=20 (Tex. 1962) (citing Gulf Oil Corp. = v.=20 Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947)). But = the=20 doctrine also recognizes that the plaintiff=92s choice must sometimes = yield in the=20 public interest, and in the interest of fundamental fairness. Id. = Further,=20 forum-non-conveniens doctrine generally = affords=20 substantially less deference to a nonresident=92s forum choice. Piper = Aircraft=20 Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 255-56 (1981); see Owens = Corning v.=20 Carter, 997 S.W.2d 560, 570 (Tex. 1999). The doctrine comes into = play when=20 there are sufficient contacts between the defendant and the forum state = to=20 confer personal jurisdiction upon the trial court, but the case itself = has no=20 significant connection to the forum. See Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. = at 506. We=20 have recognized that =93[i]t is = fundamentally unfair to=20 burden the people of Texas with the cost of providing courts to hear = cases that=20 have no significant connection with the State.=94 In re Smith=20 Barney, 975 S.W.2d at 598. Moreover, while forum-non-conveniens questions differ from due-process = inquiries,=20 see Metro, Life Ins. Co. v. Robertson-Ceco=20 Corp., 84 F.3d 560, 575 (2d Cir. 1996), the doctrine touches on = similar=20 issues of fundamental fairness, protecting defendants from being forced = to=20 litigate in oppressive and vexatious circumstances. See=20 Flaiz, 359 S.W.2d at 874 (citing Gulf = Oil,=20 330 U.S. at 508).

=20 It is true, as the Arans contend, that trial courts possess broad discretion = in=20 deciding whether to dismiss a case on forum-non-conveniens grounds. Id. But, as with other = discretionary=20 decisions, a trial court=92s forum-non-conveniens ruling=20 is subject to review for clear abuse of discretion. See In re Smith=20 Barney, 975 S.W.2d at 596. =93A trial = court abuses=20 its discretion if its decision =91is arbitrary, unreasonable, and = without=20 reference to guiding principles.=92=94 Goode v. Shoukfeh, 943 S.W.2d 441, 446 (Tex. 1997) (quoting Mercedes-Benz = Credit=20 Corp. v. Rhyne, = 925 S.W.2d=20 664, 666 (Tex.=20 1996)). And we have granted mandamus relief from orders issued under = grants of=20 authority couched in permissive terms comparable to section 71.051(a) = when trial=20 courts failed to adhere to guiding principles. For example, in In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., = 145=20 S.W.3d 203, 206 (Tex. 2004), we granted mandamus relief from a trial = court order=20 consolidating twenty cases for trial in a mass tort case. Under Rule 174 = of the=20 Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, trial courts exercise broad discretion = in=20 determining whether cases should be consolidated. When cases involve a = common=20 question of law or fact, a court =93may order a joint hearing or trial = of any or=20 all the matters in issue,=94 =93may order all the actions = consolidated,=94 and =93may=20 make such orders . . . as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or = delay.=94 Tex. R. Civ. = P. 174(a). Despite = Rule 174=92s=20 permissive language, we concluded that mandamus relief was warranted in = In re Van Waters because the trial = court=92s=20 consolidation order did not comport with the principles we have = articulated that=20 must guide a court=92s exercise of discretion under the rule. 145 S.W.2d at 210-11.

=20 We identified the principles that guide application of the=20 forum-non-conveniens doctrine long ago, when = we=20 embraced the analytical framework the United States Supreme Court = articulated in=20 Gulf Oil. Flaiz, 359 S.W.2d at = 874=20 (citing Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508). While the = Gulf=20 Oil test cannot be applied formulaically, the factors

to be considered are not difficult to name. An = interest to be=20 considered, and the one likely to be most pressed, is the private = interest of=20 the litigant. Important considerations are the relative ease of access = to=20 sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance of=20 unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses;=20 possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to the = action; and=20 all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious = and=20 inexpensive. There may also be questions as to the enforcibility of a judgment if one is obtained. = The court=20 will weigh relative advantages and obstacles to fair trial. It is often = said=20 that the plaintiff may not, by choice of an inconvenient forum, = =91vex,=92 =91harass,=92=20 or =91oppress=92 the defendant by inflicting upon him expense or trouble = not=20 necessary to his own right to pursue his remedy . . . .

Factors of=20 public interest also have place in applying the doctrine. Administrative = difficulties follow for courts when litigation is piled up in congested = centers=20 instead of being handled at its origin. Jury duty is a burden that ought = not to=20 be imposed upon the people of a community which has no relation to the=20 litigation. In cases which touch the affairs of many persons, there is = reason=20 for holding the trial in their view and reach rather than in remote = parts of the=20 country where they can learn of it by report only. There is a local = interest in=20 having localized controversies decided at home. There is an=20 appropriateness, too, in having the trial of a diversity case in = a forum=20 that is at home with the state law that must govern the case, rather = than having=20 a court in some other forum untangle problems in conflict of laws, and = in law=20 foreign to itself.

Gulf=20 Oil, 330 U.S. at 508.

=20 There is obviously much overlap between the Gulf Oil = factors and=20 those contained in section 71.051(b) of the Civil Practice and Remedies = Code.=20 But that the Legislature chose to incorporate into section 71.051(b) = some of the=20 specific concepts articulated in Gulf Oil does=20 not mean that the Gulf Oil considerations have no application and = may be=20 entirely disregarded when deciding under section 71.051(a) whether =93in = the=20 interest of justice=94 another forum would be more appropriate. To the = contrary,=20 the Gulf Oil test has guided courts for decades in determining = whether a=20 case should be dismissed on forum-non-conveniens=20 grounds. And, because =93=91[a]ll statutes = are presumed to=20 be enacted by the [L]egislature with full = knowledge of=20 the existing condition of the law and with reference to it,=92=94 we = presume that=20 the Legislature was aware of the test when it empowered courts to = dismiss noncitizen suits in the interest of justice. = Am.=20 Transitional Care Ctrs. of Texas, Inc. v.=20 Palacios, 46 S.W.3d 873, 878 (Tex. 2001)=20 (quoting McBride v. Clayton, 166 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex. = 1943)).[4]

B. The Gulf Oil Factors

1. Adequate Alternative Forum

=20 The Gulf Oil factors presuppose that an adequate = alternative forum=20 would have jurisdiction over the case. Gulf Oil, 330 = U.S. = at 507.=20 Pirelli maintains that Mexico=20 provides an adequate alternative forum because Pirelli has stipulated = that it=20 will submit to personal jurisdiction in Mexico and will not assert any=20 statute-of-limitations defense based on time that has elapsed since the=20 Texas lawsuit=20 was filed. The Arans respond that Pirelli = has failed=20 to establish that a Mexican forum is available, pointing to their = expert=92s=20 testimony that a law in the state of Tamaulipas, the=20 alternative forum for the Arans=92 suit, = =93poses a=20 formidable obstacle=94 to an agreement renouncing prescriptive rights = that have=20 not yet accrued. We note that the Arans = nowhere state=20 that prescriptive rights have not yet accrued; if they have not, then=20 limitations would not appear to be an obstacle to the Mexican forum in = the first=20 place. But in any event, the contingency that a Mexican court might not = accept=20 Pirelli=92s waiver does not overcome the important public and private = interests=20 supporting dismissal that inhere in this case, particularly when the = statute=20 authorizes the court to condition a dismissal order on the alternative = forum=92s=20 acceptance of jurisdiction. Tex. Civ.=20 Prac. & Rem. Code =A7=20 71.051(a). The federal courts commonly include such = =93return=20 jurisdiction=94 clauses in forum-non-conveniens=20 dismissal orders. See, e.g., Vasquez v. Bridgestone/Firestone, = Inc., 325 F.3d 665, 681 (5th Cir. 2003) (directing district court to = modify=20 dismissal order to include return-jurisdiction clause).

=20 The Arans also contend dismissal is=20 inappropriate here because, even if available, the Mexican forum is = inadequate=20 in a number of respects. Although they acknowledge that = Mexico provides=20 a cause of action akin to negligence, the Arans=20 contend a Mexican forum is inadequate because it does not afford a cause = of=20 action for strict liability. The Arans = contest the=20 Mexican forum=92s adequacy on the additional grounds that its legal = system does=20 not provide for a jury, no =93American-style=94 discovery is available, = and a=20 Mexican court could not compel the authentication of documents in the=20 United=20 States. The Arans=20 further contend Mexican law does not provide for survival damages and = severely=20 restricts damages for death.

=20 Presuming that the Arans=92 portrayal = of the=20 Mexican law is correct, we do not agree that a Mexican forum is thereby = rendered=20 inadequate. That the substantive law of an alternative forum may be less = favorable to the plaintiff is entitled to little, if any, weight. = Piper=20 Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 246-51. We agree = with the=20 Fifth Circuit that =93[a]n alternative forum is adequate if =91the = parties will not=20 be deprived of all remedies or treated unfairly, even though they may = not enjoy=20 the same benefits as they might receive in an American court.=92=94 = Vasquez,=20 325 F.3d at 671 (quoting Gonzalez v. Chrysler Corp., 301 F.3d = 377, 379-80=20 (5th Cir. 2002)). As the Fifth Circuit explained in Gonzalez:

[W]e start from basic principles of comity. = Mexico, as a=20 sovereign nation, has made a deliberate choice in providing a specific = remedy=20 for this tort cause of action. In making this policy choice, the Mexican = government has resolved a trade-off among the competing objectives and = costs of=20 tort law, involving interests of victims, of consumers, of = manufacturers, and of=20 various other economic and cultural values. In resolving this trade-off, = the=20 Mexican people, through their duly-elected lawmakers, have decided to = limit tort=20 damages . . . . It would be inappropriate =97 even patronizing =97 for = us to=20 denounce this legitimate policy choice by holding that = Mexico provides=20 an inadequate forum for Mexican tort victims.

301 F.3d at 381-82. Pirelli has demonstrated the = availability=20 of an adequate alternative forum, and the factors that the Arans raise are immaterial to that assessment.

2. Private Interests

=20 Pirelli argues that the private-interest factors identified in = Gulf=20 Oil favor a Mexican forum for several reasons, and we agree. First, = key=20 evidence and witnesses concerning damages are in Mexico. Benitez,=20 the only witness to the accident, together with the accident = investigators and=20 all medical personnel are in Mexico. The witnesses most = likely to=20 be familiar with the condition and maintenance of the truck and the = tire, the=20 truck=92s owner and its importer, are in Mexico. None of the Mexican = witnesses=20 can be compelled to testify in Texas, and=20 several critical witnesses =97 Benitez, the truck=92s owner, the = importer of the=20 truck, and even one of the plaintiffs =97 have refused to be deposed = here. While=20 compulsory process may be available under the Hague Convention, Pirelli=20 presented evidence that the process was time-consuming, uncertain as to = result,=20 and unlikely to bear fruit in time for trial. The accident scene itself = is in=20 Mexico. Moreover, evidence = concerning=20 the tire=92s design and manufacture is located not in Texas, but in Georgia or Iowa.

=20 The Arans contend Pirelli has not = demonstrated=20 that litigating in Cameron County would be vexatious or = oppressive,=20 and has not shown that any burden on the corporation would substantially = outweigh their own convenience. But the Arans cannot=20 logically claim that it is more convenient for them to litigate in = Texas than in Mexico. In fact, Felipa Aran Limas, = Valentin=92s mother, has refused to appear for a = deposition in=20 Texas,=20 claiming she is unable to make the trip. It is undoubtedly true, as the = Arans claim, that documentary evidence and expert = reports=20 will have to be translated into Spanish if the case proceeds in=20 Mexico. But it is equally = true that=20 all documents and testimony bearing on the accident and its cause, the = condition=20 and maintenance of the truck and the tire, and damages, will have to be=20 translated into English if the case is tried in Texas. On balance, the = private=20 interests that are implicated clearly favor the Mexican forum.

3. Public Interests

=20 Factors regarding the public interest must also be considered in = applying=20 the doctrine of forum non conveniens. = Gulf Oil,=20 330 U.S. at 508. The public = interests=20 involved here strongly favor Mexico. Mexico=92s=20 interest in protecting its citizens and seeing that they are compensated = for=20 their injuries is paramount. The safety of Mexican highways and products = within=20 the country=92s borders are also Mexican interests. On the other hand, = it is=20 unfair to impose upon the citizens of Cameron County the cost and administrative burden of = a complex=20 products-liability suit with no significant connection to Texas. As the = Supreme=20 Court has stated, =93[j]ury duty is a burden = that ought=20 not to be imposed upon the people of a community which has no relation = to the=20 litigation.=94 Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508-09. The = happenstance that=20 the truck was in Texas for eleven = days before=20 it was sold and imported to Mexico is simply insufficient to = provide=20 Texas with any=20 interest in this case.

=20 In sum, the factors the Supreme Court articulated in Gulf = Oil=20 clearly and overwhelmingly favor a Mexican forum for resolution of this = dispute.=20 In light of the evidence presented, the trial court=92s denial of = Pirelli=92s motion=20 was arbitrary, unreasonable, contrary to guiding rules and principles, = and=20 constituted a clear abuse of discretion.

IV. Inadequate Remedy by Appeal

=20 We have held that there is no adequate remedy by appeal when a = trial=20 court refuses to enforce a forum-selection clause. In re=20 Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. = 2004).=20 Erroneous denial of a forum-non-conveniens = motion is=20 closely analogous, and for the same reasons cannot be adequately = rectified on=20 appeal. We conclude that Pirelli has no adequate remedy by appeal, and=20 conditionally grant mandamus relief.

*=20 * *

=20 For the foregoing reasons, we conditionally grant Pirelli=92s = petition for=20 writ of mandamus, and direct the trial court to dismiss the case in = accordance=20 with our opinion. The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to=20 comply.

=20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 ___________________________________

=20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 Harriet O=92Neill

=20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 Justice

OPINION = DELIVERED:=20 November 2, 2007

^[1]=20 The plaintiffs also sued Rolando Garza, d/b/a R. Garza Motors, the = Brownsville = dealer who=20 sold the truck, but agreed to nonsuit Garza = in=20 exchange for Pirelli=92s agreement not to remove the suit to federal=20 court.

^[2]=20 The statute has since been amended; all references to section 71.051 in = this=20 opinion are to the version in effect when the case was filed.

^[3]=20 In 2003, the Legislature eliminated any distinction between the claims = of=20 citizens and noncitizens. It repealed former = section=20 71.051(a). Act of June 1, 2003, 78th Leg., R.S., = ch. 204, =A7 3.09, 2003 Tex. Gen. Laws 847, = 855. The=20 statute now provides that, if a court finds that =93in the interest of = justice and=20 for the convenience of the parties [a case] would be more properly heard = in a=20 forum outside this state, the court shall decline to exercise=20 jurisdiction under the doctrine of forum non conveniens and shall stay or dismiss the = claim or=20 action.=94 Tex. Civ. Prac. = & Rem.=20 Code =A7 71.051(b) (emphasis added). That the Legislature has now = mandated=20 dismissal or a stay if a trial court finds that a case would be more = properly=20 heard in another forum does not mean that the discretion courts formerly = exercised was limitless, however.

^[4]=20 Several commentators have observed that the common-law forum-non-conveniens analysis applies to section 71.051(a). = See=20 James Holmes, House Bill 4=92s Impact on Multi-Plaintiff Joinder & Intervention and on Forum Non Conveniens, 46 S. Tex. L. Rev. 775, 820-21 (2005); = Carl=20 Christopher Scherz, Comment, Section = 71.051 of the=20 Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code =96 The Texas Legislature=92s = Answer to=20 Alfaro: Forum Non Conveniens in = Personal Injury=20 and Wrongful Death Litigation, 46 Baylor L. Rev. 99, 118=20 (1994).