Choosing The Proper Venue In Texas

Oberheiden, P.C.
Federal-Lawyer.com
888-680-1745
Including Weekends

The Law

It is often said that the plaintiff has their choice of venue. Of course, this simple statement is not entirely true. While the plaintiff may file their suit in any court where the venue is proper, other considerations may result in dismissal or transfer of the claim to another court. Typically, in Texas state court, venue is considered proper “(1) in the county in which all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; (2) in the county of defendant’s residence at the time the cause of action accrued if defendant is a natural person; (3) in the county of the defendant’s principal office in this state, if the defendant is not a natural person; or (4) if Subdivisions (1), (2), and (3) do not apply, in the county in which the plaintiff resided at the time of the accrual of the cause of action.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 15.002.

Mandatory Venue

The general rule does not always apply, however, and you need to always check to ensure there is not a required venue provision related to the type of action you are filing or due to the defendant in your case. The most common mandatory venue provisions are found in Subchapter B of Chapter 15 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, and include actions relating to particular injunctions, actions dealing with real property, disputes between landlords and tenants, actions for libel or slander, as well as actions against counties or other political subdivisions of the state. Texas also provides for enforcement of venue provisions in a contract if that contract is for a value of over one million dollars. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 15.020.

Put our highly experienced team on your side

Dr. Nick Oberheiden

Founder

Attorney-at-Law

Lynette S. Byrd

Former Department of Justice

Brian J. Kuester

Former U.S. Attorney
Former DA

John W. Sellers

Former Senior Trial Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice

Local Counsel

Joanne Fine DeLena

Former Assistant U.S. Attorney

Local Counsel

Joe Brown

Former U.S. Attorney & Former District Attorney

Local Trial & Defense Counsel

Amanda Marshall

Former U.S. Attorney

Local Counsel

Aaron L. Wiley

Former Federal Prosecutor

Local Counsel

Roger Bach

Former Special Agent (OIG)

Michael Koslow

Former Supervisory Special Agent (FBI)

Chris Quick

Former Special Agent (FBI & IRS-CI)

Ray Yuen

Former Supervisory Special Agent (FBI)

Dominant Jurisdiction

Sometimes, the parties involved in a lawsuit sue each other in different counties, with each party hoping to be the plaintiff and have their choice of venue. This phenomenon is often called “the race to the courthouse.” Generally speaking, the person who is the first to file will win the fight over venue between two Texas counties under the doctrine of dominant jurisdiction. This doctrine provides that the first court that exercises jurisdiction over the case has priority over the second court. The second court will usually either dismiss, transfer, or stay the case filed in its county to allow the first court to proceed with adjudicating the dispute.

Forum non conveniens

Showing the court that the plaintiff’s choice of venue may be technically proper but is so inconvenient that the choice should not stand is one way to defeat the general rule of dominant jurisdiction, or to change the venue in any case in which you are the defendant. In order to accomplish this goal, you should file a motion to stay or dismiss the case under the doctrine of “forum non conveniens,” which means that the chosen forum is not convenient. However, because courts do not like to disturb the plaintiff’s choice of venue, there is a decently high standard to meet to have such a motion granted. In Texas, a court will consider the following factors in determining whether to grant the motion: “whether (1) an alternate forum exists in which the claim or action may be tried; (2) the alternate forum provides an adequate remedy; (3) maintenance of the claim or action in the courts of this state would work a substantial injustice to the moving party; (4) the alternate forum, as a result of the submission of the parties or otherwise, can exercise jurisdiction over all the defendants properly joined to the plaintiff’s claim; (5) the balance of the private interests of the parties and the public interest of the state predominate in favor of the claim or action being brought in an alternate forum, which shall include consideration of the extent to which an injury or death resulted from acts or omissions that occurred in this state; and(6) the stay or dismissal would not result in unreasonable duplication or proliferation of litigation.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 71.051(b).

Free Consultation

If you need assistance in choosing or maintaining a proper venue for your case, you should contact the experienced attorneys at Oberheiden, P.C.. Get a complimentary, confidential consultation and benefit from talking to former federal and state prosecutors and experienced litigators.

Oberheiden, P.C.
888-680-1745
Federal-Lawyer.com

This information has been prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. This information may constitute attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Reading of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship. Prior results do not guarantee similar future outcomes. Oberheiden, P.C. is a Texas PC with headquarters in Dallas. Dr. Oberheiden limits his practice to federal law.

Last Updated: 2023-05-05