In Re Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.
42 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1018, 1999 Tex. LEXIS 89, 998 S.W.2d 212 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Texas venue statutes, 'a principal office' is a location where decision-makers with substantial authority conduct the organization's daily affairs. A corporation can have multiple principal offices, but only if they are run by officials of substantially equal responsibility; an office that is clearly subordinate to and controlled by another office within the state does not qualify as a principal office.
Facts:
- Multiple railroad employees, including Freddie Burleigh, Terriance Spiller, and Ronald Smirl, suffered work-related injuries under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA).
- All of the employees' injuries occurred outside of the state of Texas.
- None of the employees resided in the Texas county where they filed their lawsuit at the time their cause of action accrued.
- These employees filed lawsuits against their employers, including Missouri Pacific Railroad and Union Pacific Railroad, in Jefferson County and Tarrant County, Texas.
- The plaintiffs asserted that venue was proper in these counties because the railroad defendants maintained a 'principal office' there.
- The railroad defendants maintained higher-level executive officers, including general solicitors, a vice president, and a general manager, in Harris County, Texas.
- The railroad officials in Tarrant County, such as the division superintendent, were subject to the authority of and reported to the general manager in Harris County.
- The railroad officials in Jefferson County consisted of managers of train and yard operations and a maintenance foreman, with no evidence they possessed authority comparable to the executives in Harris County.
Procedural Posture:
- Multiple plaintiffs filed six separate FELA lawsuits against railroad defendants in Texas state trial courts in Jefferson County and Tarrant County.
- The plaintiffs alleged venue was proper in the county of suit because the defendants maintained a 'principal office' there.
- The railroad defendants filed motions to transfer venue, arguing that their principal office in Texas was in Harris County and that venue was improper in the counties where the suits were filed.
- The trial courts in both Jefferson County and Tarrant County denied the defendants' motions to transfer venue.
- The railroad defendants sought writs of mandamus from the Supreme Court of Texas to compel the trial courts to transfer the cases.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a corporation maintain 'a principal office' under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 15.001(a) in a county where it has managerial employees, if those employees and their office are subordinate to higher-ranking executives located in another county within the state?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Gonzales
No. A county where a corporation's managerial employees are located does not constitute the site of 'a principal office' for venue purposes if that office and its personnel are clearly subordinate to and controlled by another office within Texas. The statutory definition of 'a principal office' requires the presence of 'decision makers' who conduct the 'daily affairs' of the organization, a standard not met by mere agents, representatives, or low-level managers. While the statute's use of 'a principal office' allows for the possibility of more than one, legislative history indicates this applies only where decision-makers in different locations are of 'an equal level' of authority. A court must perform a comparative analysis of the corporation's statewide structure, focusing on the responsibility and authority of officials. Here, the evidence showed that the railroad's officials in Jefferson and Tarrant counties were subordinate to a larger concentration of high-level executive authority in Harris County. Therefore, the plaintiffs failed to meet their prima facie burden to prove that Jefferson or Tarrant County was a principal office, and the trial courts abused their discretion in denying the transfer of venue.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the meaning of 'a principal office' for venue purposes in Texas, reinforcing the legislature's intent to curb forum shopping. By establishing a qualitative, comparative test based on a corporation's statewide command structure, the court makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to file suit against large corporations in any county where they merely have operations or a mid-level manager. The ruling solidifies the principle that venue should be tied to the locus of actual corporate control within the state, not just a physical presence. This precedent will guide future venue disputes by requiring plaintiffs to produce specific evidence about corporate hierarchy and the relative authority of decision-makers across different locations.
