|
SENATE BILL 220 |
SENATE AUTHOR: Bivins et al. |
|
EFFECTIVE: 5-29-97 |
HOUSE SPONSOR: Junell |
Senate Bill 220 amends the Civil Practice and Remedies Code relating to the statutory doctrine of forum non conveniens. Forum non conveniens refers to the discretionary power of the court to decline jurisdiction when the convenience of parties and ends of justice would be better served if the action were brought and tried in another state or sovereign nation. In Texas, the forum non conveniens doctrine requires judges to apply a different set of criteria to lawsuits filed by two categories of individuals: foreign plaintiffs and plaintiffs whose legal residence lies in another state.
Under previous law, claims based on any violation of federal law and claims related to air transportation, railroad companies, and asbestos were exempted from operation of the doctrine. Senate Bill 220 amends the law to allow a plaintiff who is a United States citizen to have the suit stayed or dismissed by the court and moved to another jurisdiction if the plaintiff can prove certain conditions exist relating to an alternate forum. The act authorizes the court to set terms and conditions for staying or dismissing a claim and requires the court to withdraw the order if the plaintiff violates a term or condition of the stay or dismissal. This act provides for a filing period of not later than 180 days after the time required for filing a motion to transfer venue.
The act also amends the doctrine of forum non conveniens to provide that a court may not stay or dismiss a claim if the plaintiff is a legal resident of this state, or in a situation that has multiple resident and nonresident plaintiffs, forum non conveniens is impermissible if the resident plaintiff is properly joined and the cause of action arose out of a single occurrence.
The act also adds a new section relating to the jurisdiction of a claim for personal injury or wrongful death when the plaintiff was not a resident of the state when the claim arose, the claim arose outside the state, and the claim alleges that harm was caused by exposure to asbestos fibers.