In Re: James M. Baker and Castro & Baker, LLP Appeal from 417th Judicial District Court of Collin County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Denied and Opinion Filed October 31, 2017 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-17-01205-CV IN RE JAMES M. BAKER AND CASTRO & BAKER, LLP, Relators Original Proceeding from the 417th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 417-00076-2017 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang, Brown, and Stoddart Opinion by Justice Lang In this original proceeding, relators complain of the trial court’s denial of relators’ motion to dismiss based on a contractual forum selection clause. To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court has clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). In the trial court, real party in interest Strategic Contract Brands, Inc. asserted seven grounds for denying relators’ motion to dismiss. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and denied relators’ motion for reconsideration without stating on which grounds it denied the motions. In their petition for writ of mandamus, Relators address only the first two grounds raised by the real party in interest below. When an appellant fails to attack one of the possible grounds on which a judgment was granted, the judgment must be affirmed. Malooly Bros., Inc. v. Napier, 461 S.W.2d 119, 121 (Tex. 1970) (stating proposition in context of summary judgment). By failing to address all possible grounds for the trial court’s ruling, we must affirm on the grounds not addressed. See id.; see also Mann v. Denton County, No. 02-16-00030-CV, 2017 WL 526309, at *6 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 9, 2017, pet. denied) (“When the trial court grants a plea to the jurisdiction and does not state the basis of its ruling, we may affirm on any basis preserved in the record.”). Here, relators’ failure to challenge five grounds raised by the real party in interest below is fatal to relators’ petition. Relators also complain that they have been harmed by the trial court’s failure to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law because relators have been forced to guess the reasons for the trial court’s rulings. We disagree. Findings of fact and conclusions of law are unnecessary where, as here, the trial court has decided the case based solely on the pleadings and arguments of counsel. CMS Partners, Ltd. v. Plumrose USA, Inc., 101 S.W.3d 730, 736 (Tex. App.— Texarkana 2003, no pet.) (findings and conclusions unnecessary where interpretation and enforceability of the forum selection clause were the only issues presented on appeal) (citing IKB Indus. (Nigeria) Ltd. v. Pro–Line Corp., 938 S.W.2d 440, 443 (Tex. 1997) and Awde v. Dabeit, 938 S.W.2d 31, 33 (Tex. 1997)). Relators have not been harmed by the lack of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Based on the record before us, we conclude relators have not shown they are entitled to the relief requested. Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. . See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the court determines relator is not entitled to the relief sought). 171205F.P05 /Douglas S. Lang/ DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE –2–
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
