Chief Justice Jaime Tijerina
The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals has conditionally granted an energy services company’s petition for writ of mandamus ordering a Hidalgo County trial court to transfer venue in an employment dispute from Hidalgo to Tarrant County.
In re Baseline Energy Services, LP and Baseline Services, LLC (No. 13-25-00001-CV; March 5, 2025) arose from an action filed by a former Baseline employee, who alleged that he was terminated in retaliation for filing a worker’s compensation claim. He asserted venue in Hidalgo County on the basis that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred there. Baseline responded by filing a motion to transfer venue to Tarrant County, alleging that “the alleged actions took place, if at all” where its principal offices were located, or, alternatively, in La Salle County, where the employee worked. Plaintiff then filed an amended pleading adding a libel claim and objected to the motion to transfer venue. He further argued that venue was mandatory in Hidalgo County because he resided there. He also added a defamation claim. Baseline responded that Plaintiff had to live in Starr County because he was running for constable there and identified Starr County as his place of residence in the filing documents. Baseline argued that since Plaintiff filed a defamation claim, venue was mandatory in Tarrant County, its corporate domicile, under § 15.07, CPRC. Additionally, since Plaintiff sought injunctive relief as well, mandatory venue was likewise in Tarrant County under § 65.023, CPRC. When Baseline’s lawyers couldn’t get to the venue hearing because of bad weather, the trial court granted Plaintiff’s motion to deny the motion to transfer. Baseline sought mandamus relief.
In an opinion by Chief Justice Tijerina, the court of appeals conditionally granted the writ. Baseline argued that the trial court abused its discretion in denying its motion to transfer venue because it specifically denied Plaintiff’s venue allegations and two different statutes made venue mandatory in Tarrant County. Plaintiff staked his case on the fact that Baseline did not appear at the hearing and thus did not deny his venue allegations. Looking to TCRP 87, the court found no requirement in the rule, as Plaintiff argued, that a defendant appear at a venue hearing. Instead, Rule 87(b)(3) commands the court to determine a transfer of venue based on the pleadings, any stipulations of the parties, and any affidavits or attachments filed with the court. “In short,” Chief Justice Tijerina wrote, “relator’s counsel’s appearance at the hearing would have added nothing for the trial court to consider in determining the merits of relators’ motion to transfer venue insofar as its ruling was required to be based on the parties’ pleadings and affidavits.” Additionally, nothing relator did indicated an intention to waive its objection to venue. To the contrary, Baseline filed a verified motion for continuance based on severe weather prior to the hearing.
Turning to the issue of specific denial, the court examined Baseline’s motion to transfer and determined that Baseline specifically refuted Plaintiff’s claim that all or a substantial part of the events giving rise to his claim occurred in Hidalgo County or, indeed, that anything happened in Hidalgo County. That left the issue of whether venue was mandatory in Tarrant County. The court concluded that it was because § 65.023, which governs venue for injunctions, prevailed over § 15.017 (venue for defamation actions). The question then became whether Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief constituted “the dominant purpose or central purpose of his lawsuit” (citation omitted). Plaintiff’s petition sought several things, including back pay and lost benefits, front pay, pain and suffering damages, punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorney’s fees and costs. It also sought equitable relief (in the form of reinstatement) and injunctive relief ordering Baseline to refrain from discriminatory conduct and to implement policies providing equal employment opportunities. The court unsurprisingly determined that Plaintiff’s request for an injunction was not the dominant purpose of the lawsuit, so the mandatory venue provision of § 65.023 didn’t apply here.
Pivoting back to § 15.07, however, the court found that Plaintiff’s libel and defamation claims could only be maintained in the county of Plaintiff’s residence at the time the cause of action accrued, the county in which Defendant resided when the suit was filed, or the county of the defendant’s residence or, for corporate defendants, the county of domicile. Plaintiff’s contention that he resided in Hidalgo County, however, didn’t hold water. He didn’t produce any evidence regarding that allegation, whereas Baseline pleaded and offered prima facie proof that it was domiciled in Tarrant County (the location of its principal office). Since Plaintiff failed to carry his burden of proof and Baseline did, the right to select venue passed to Baseline. And under § 15.07, venue was proper in Tarrant County. The trial court thus abused its discretion by denying Baseline’s motion to transfer.
This decision doesn’t shed a very positive light on the trial court, which, from the look of it, simply ignored the law by declining to review the venue evidence and taking Plaintiff’s word for it. One would imagine that litigating the matter in Tarrant County is not an attractive prospect for Plaintiff, so the case is likely kaput. One side note: Plaintiff did indeed run for constable in Starr County as a Republican. He was defeated by the Democratic incumbent.
