In re Greyhound Lines, Inc.: Clarifying Texas Forum Non Conveniens, Mexican Forums, and Waiver Through Crossclaims

I. Introduction

The Supreme Court of Texas’s per curiam decision in In re Greyhound Lines, Inc. addresses when Texas courts must dismiss a case on forum non conveniens grounds in favor of Mexican courts, and how a defendant’s post-denial crossclaim affects that right. The case arises from a fatal bus crash in Mexico involving a U.S.–based ticket seller (Greyhound), a Mexican carrier (Estrella Blanca), and a Mexican driver.

The plaintiffs, members of the Granados family, sued in Dallas County after Maria Granados, an Alabama resident and Mexican citizen, died in a bus crash near San Luis Potosí, Mexico. Maria’s son bought her ticket from Greyhound in Alabama. Under a pre-existing agreement, Greyhound sold tickets for Estrella Blanca’s Mexican routes, and the last leg of Maria’s journey—the one on which the accident occurred—was on an Estrella Blanca bus wholly within Mexico.

The family sued Greyhound, Estrella Blanca, and the driver for:

• Contract and fraud claims (for allegedly failing to disclose the role of Estrella Blanca), and
• Tort-based claims: negligence, negligence per se, negligent entrustment, hiring, training, and supervision, and wrongful death and survival, plus vicarious liability theories.

Only Greyhound appeared. It moved to dismiss based on forum non conveniens under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 71.051. Greyhound stipulated that it would:

• Submit to the jurisdiction of Mexican courts, and
• Waive any statute-of-limitations defense in Mexico.

The trial court denied the motion, holding Mexican courts in San Luis Potosí were neither “available” nor “adequate.” After that ruling, Greyhound filed a protective crossclaim against Estrella Blanca for indemnity and sought mandamus relief from the court of appeals and then the Texas Supreme Court.

The central issues before the Supreme Court were:

1. Whether Mexico is an “available” and “adequate” alternate forum under § 71.051(b), notwithstanding:
   • The alleged expiration of Mexican limitations periods,
   • The missing driver (alleged necessary party),
   • Different damage regimes and procedures, and
   • The existence of the Mexican “amparo” procedure.
2. Whether, when all statutory factors favor dismissal, a trial court’s refusal to dismiss constitutes an abuse of discretion remediable by mandamus.
3. Whether Greyhound’s crossclaim in the Texas case amounted to:
   • A judicial admission that Texas is a proper forum, or
   • A waiver of its previously asserted forum non conveniens challenge.
4. What standard of review applies to determinations of Mexican law, given competing expert testimony at the trial level.

II. Summary of the Opinion

The Supreme Court conditionally granted Greyhound’s petition for writ of mandamus. It held:

• All six statutory forum non conveniens factors in § 71.051(b) unanimously favored dismissal in favor of Mexican courts.
• Mexico is an “available” forum because Greyhound stipulated to jurisdiction and waiver of limitations, and Mexican courts can adjudicate the claims even without the fugitive driver as a party.
• Mexico is an “adequate” forum; the absence of punitive damages, survival-type damages, a jury, “American-style” discovery, and the presence of the “amparo” procedure do not reduce the remedy to “no remedy at all.”
• Maintaining the suit in Texas would work a substantial injustice to Greyhound because the overwhelming majority of witnesses and evidence are in Mexico and outside Texas subpoena power.
• Trial and most claims will be governed by Mexican law under the “most significant relationship” approach; thus public and private factors strongly favor a Mexican forum.
• Any duplication of litigation efforts caused by late dismissal is not “unreasonable,” especially because Greyhound’s motion was timely and the delay resulted from the trial court’s erroneous denial.
• Greyhound’s crossclaim did not create a binding judicial admission that Texas is the proper forum, and did not waive its forum non conveniens challenge.
• Determinations of Mexican law are questions of law reviewed de novo under Texas Rule of Evidence 203, not fact findings entitled to deference based on expert witness “credibility.”

The Court ordered the trial court to vacate its denial, dismiss the claims against Greyhound, and may impose additional conditions on that dismissal “as the interests of justice may require,” such as requiring Mexican courts to accept jurisdiction and mandating witness appearances. A writ will issue only if the trial court fails to comply.

III. Legal and Procedural Framework

A. Texas Statutory Forum Non Conveniens — § 71.051

Section 71.051 governs forum non conveniens in Texas wrongful death and personal injury cases. Under § 71.051(b), a court must stay or dismiss a claim if, “in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties,” it “would be more properly heard in a forum outside this state,” after considering six mandatory factors:

1. Existence of an alternate forum where the case may be tried.
2. Whether the alternate forum provides an adequate remedy.
3. Whether keeping the case in Texas would work a substantial injustice to the moving party.
4. Whether the alternate forum can exercise jurisdiction over all properly joined defendants.
5. Whether the balance of private and public interests predominate in favor of the alternate forum (including the extent to which the injury resulted from acts or omissions in Texas).
6. Whether dismissal will avoid unreasonable duplication or proliferation of litigation.

The statute places no formal burden of proof on either party; the trial court must base its decision on the “greater weight of the evidence.” (In re ENSCO Offshore Int’l Co.)

Section 71.051(c) authorizes the court to impose conditions on dismissal “as the interests of justice may require, giving due regard to the rights of the parties.” Section 71.051(e) bars dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds where the plaintiff or derivative claimant is a Texas legal resident—an exception not applicable in this case because the Granados family resides in Alabama.

B. Mandamus Review in Forum Non Conveniens Cases

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy used to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In the forum non conveniens context, In re General Electric Co. holds that mandamus relief is appropriate when a trial court denies a motion to dismiss and all six § 71.051(b) factors favor dismissal.

The Court again emphasizes that when the statutory factors all point in one direction, a refusal to dismiss is an abuse of discretion warranting mandamus relief.

C. Determining Foreign Law — Texas Rule of Evidence 203

Texas Rule of Evidence 203 governs how courts ascertain foreign law. The Court characterizes Rule 203 as a “hybrid rule”:

• Parties submit “testimony, depositions, or written materials” as proof of foreign law, resembling evidence presentation.
• However, foreign law is ultimately treated as a question of law, not fact.

Under Rule 203:

• The trial court may consider any relevant material or source, whether or not submitted by the parties, but if it goes beyond party submissions it must provide notice and an opportunity to respond.
• The determination of foreign law is reviewed de novo on appeal, not deferentially.

The Court cites Long Distance Int’l, Inc. v. Telefonos de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., reaffirming that appellate courts owe no deference to a trial court’s view of foreign law or to its assessment of expert credibility on that issue.

IV. Detailed Analysis of the Court’s Reasoning

A. Nature of the Claims and Factual Connections

The Court begins by characterizing the plaintiffs’ claims in two categories:

1. Contract/Fraud claims – Based on Greyhound’s alleged failure to disclose that a different carrier (Estrella Blanca) would operate a portion of the route. These claims are more closely tied to Greyhound’s ticketing operations and representations in the United States, including Dallas. However, their damages stem from the accident in Mexico.
2. Tort and wrongful death claims – Centered on the crash and its causes, including:
   • The driver’s conduct on Mexican roads,
   • Estrella Blanca’s entrustment, training, and supervision of the driver, and

The Court suggests that while the contract and fraud claims have some U.S. nexus, the bulk of the tort claims and factual disputes are firmly anchored in Mexico.

B. Factor 1 – Availability of a Mexican Forum

Section 71.051(b)(1) asks whether “an alternate forum exists in which the claim or action may be tried.” Under Texas case law, an alternate forum is “available” if the defendant is “amenable to process” there (ENSCO, Weatherford).

The Court’s reasoning:

1. Prior holdings that Mexico is an available forum.
   The Court notes it has repeatedly held Mexico to be an available forum in similar cases arising from accidents in Mexico, including:
   • In re Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, and
   • In re Pirelli Tire, L.L.C. (plurality plus concurrence forming a majority on the relevant points).
2. Greyhound’s stipulation strengthens availability.
   Greyhound has stipulated that it:
   • Will submit to jurisdiction in Mexico, and
   • Will waive any statute-of-limitations defense there.
   Such stipulations are a common mechanism used in prior Texas forum non conveniens decisions (Bridgestone, Oceanografia, Pirelli Tire) to cure concerns about service, timeliness, or jurisdiction in the alternate forum.
3. Trial court’s “necessary party” concern rejected.
   The trial court reasoned that Mexican courts were unavailable because the bus driver—who fled after the accident and remains missing—was a “necessary party,” and allegedly no valid judgment could be rendered without him. This finding rested on Mexican case summaries offered by plaintiffs’ expert. The Supreme Court scrutinizes those materials and concludes:
   • The cited summaries explain that all defendants must be “called” or “summoned” and that judgments should address all parties at the same time.
   • They do not state that a court is powerless to proceed if a party is summoned but does not appear.
   By contrast, Greyhound presented unrefuted materials indicating that Mexican law allows joint-and-several liability, enabling a court to issue relief against appearing defendants even if another defendant (the driver) is absent.
4. Plaintiffs’ refusal to consent is irrelevant.
   Plaintiffs argued Mexico is unavailable because they would not consent to jurisdiction there. The Court characterizes this as legally irrelevant:
   • Availability turns on whether the defendant is amenable to process, not whether the plaintiff is willing to sue there (Weatherford, ENSCO).
   • Plaintiff’s preference for Texas is already embedded in their choice of forum; allowing plaintiffs to defeat forum non conveniens simply by withholding consent would effectively “narrow, if not obliterate, the doctrine.”
   • The Court analogizes to prior decisions where it refused to allow plaintiffs to defeat dismissal for reasons “entirely in [the plaintiff’s] hands” (General Electric, Weatherford).
5. Possibility that Mexico might decline jurisdiction does not negate availability.
   Plaintiffs argued that Mexican courts possess discretion to decline the case. The Court answers that such a possibility does not override the other factors—especially because Texas courts can condition dismissal on the foreign court’s acceptance of jurisdiction. This builds directly on General Electric, which endorsed conditional dismissals to address this risk.

Conclusion on Factor 1: Mexico is an available forum as a matter of law, particularly given Greyhound’s jurisdiction and limitations waiver stipulation and the trial court’s misreading of the Mexican “necessary party” jurisprudence.

C. Factor 2 – Adequacy of Mexican Remedy

Section 71.051(b)(2) asks whether the alternate forum “provides an adequate remedy.” The adequacy standard, as restated in this opinion (quoting Pirelli Tire and Weatherford): An alternate forum is adequate if “the parties will not be deprived of all remedies or treated unfairly, even though they may not enjoy the same benefits as they might receive in an American court.”

Key points in the Court’s reasoning:

1. “Lesser remedies” do not equal inadequacy.
   The Court reiterates that Mexican law’s lack of:
   • Punitive damages,
   • “Survival-type” damages,
   • Prejudgment interest,
   and other differences do not render the forum inadequate. The plaintiffs are not “deprived of all remedies”; they simply may obtain “lesser remedies,” which remains sufficient under Texas law (Oceanografia).
2. Procedural differences do not defeat adequacy.
   Plaintiffs also objected that Mexican courts:
   • Do not provide jury trials,
   • Use different discovery tools and a higher causation standard, and
   • Allow “amparo,” described here as an interlocutory appellate device that may delay final judgment.
   The Court sees these as classic “comparative analyses” of foreign procedure and substantive law, which Texas courts avoid unless the alternate forum offers “no remedy at all.” It has already rejected arguments based on the absence of juries and “American-style” discovery when assessing Mexican courts (Pirelli Tire).
3. Comity and judicial reforms.
   In a brief but significant point, the Court declines to entertain plaintiffs’ argument that recent judicial reforms in Mexico will “destabilize” its judiciary. Invoking principles of comity, the Court labels such critiques—especially on cursory argument—improper grounds for deeming a foreign forum inadequate.

Conclusion on Factor 2: Mexican courts provide an adequate remedy. The Court reinforces a high threshold for inadequacy: only where a foreign forum would, “in substance, provide no remedy at all” will Texas courts refuse to dismiss on adequacy grounds.

D. Factor 3 – Substantial Injustice to the Moving Party if the Case Remains in Texas

Section 71.051(b)(3) looks to whether keeping the case in Texas would work a “substantial injustice” to the moving party, here Greyhound.

The Court stresses the geographic distribution of evidence and witnesses:

• In Mexico:
  • Estrella Blanca’s officers and employees,
  • The bus driver (believed to be a Mexican resident),
  • Other passengers (all with Mexican addresses),
  • Mexican federal police who investigated,
  • Local prosecutors and the medical examiner,
  • The physical scene of the accident and related local records.
• In the United States:
  • The Granados family (Alabama),
  • Greyhound corporate representatives (Dallas),
  • Some documentary evidence (e.g., corporate records in Texas, ticketing documentation).

Texas courts lack compulsory process over Mexican witnesses, while there is no indication that Mexican courts lack mechanisms to compel Mexican witnesses to appear (Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. is cited by analogy).

The plaintiffs argue that the Mexican accident and autopsy reports “establish” liability and damages, downplaying the need for in-person testimony. The Court responds:

• Even assuming documentary evidence is strong, Greyhound is entitled to challenge it.
• Experience in similar cases (Oceanografia, General Electric) shows that witnesses are still required to “explain the events” and “the content of” records.
• A party’s promise to “produce some or even most evidence” does not cure the absence of effective compulsory process for trial.

The presence of Greyhound’s corporate officers in Dallas and the plaintiffs’ depositions in the U.S. are insufficient to overcome the “overwhelming number of Mexican connections.” The Court notes it has ordered dismissal even in cases where the defendant is headquartered in Texas (ENSCO, General Electric).

Conclusion on Factor 3: Forcing Greyhound to litigate in Texas where most non-party witnesses and evidence remain beyond its subpoena power constitutes a “substantial injustice.”

E. Factor 4 – Jurisdiction Over All Properly Joined Defendants in the Alternate Forum

Section 71.051(b)(4) requires that the alternate forum “can exercise jurisdiction over all the defendants properly joined to the plaintiff’s claim,” based on “submission of the parties or otherwise.”

The Court’s analysis is straightforward:

• Greyhound has expressly agreed to submit to Mexican jurisdiction.
• Estrella Blanca is domiciled in Mexico City; the bus driver is believed to be a Mexican resident. Both are presumptively subject to Mexican courts’ jurisdiction.

This satisfies factor 4. The opinion does not suggest any defect in Mexican jurisdiction over any named defendant.

F. Factor 5 – Balance of Private and Public Interests

Section 71.051(b)(5) requires weighing:

• Private interests: ease of access to proof, cost and availability of compulsory process, and other practical trial considerations; and
• Public interests: court congestion, the burden on local juries, local interest in resolving localized disputes, and whether the forum is “at home with” the governing law (General Electric, Weatherford).

1. Private Interests

Private interests largely track the “substantial injustice” analysis:

• Most witnesses and physical evidence are located in Mexico.
• Compulsory process for Mexican witnesses is unavailable in Texas but available in Mexico.
• Even if some witnesses and records are in the U.S., Mexican connections predominate.

Citing ENSCO, the Court reiterates that even where “some witnesses are located in the United States,” the unavailability of compulsory process for “the vast majority” of witnesses favors dismissal.

2. Public Interests and Choice of Law

Public interests swing strongly toward Mexico, especially due to choice-of-law considerations. The Court applies Texas’s “most significant relationship” test for wrongful death/personal injury, derived from the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 146:

• Place of injury: Mexico (the crash and death occurred there).
• Place of conduct causing injury: Primarily Mexico (driver’s conduct and Estrella Blanca’s supervision and operations).
• Residence, nationality, place of business:
  • Granados family: Alabama residents.
  • Greyhound: Delaware corporation headquartered in Texas.
  • Estrella Blanca & driver: Mexican residents.
• Place where the parties’ relationship is centered:
  • Greyhound–Granados relationship may be argued to center in Texas (ticketing through Dallas-based company) or Alabama (where the ticket was purchased).
  • But the relationships between Estrella Blanca, the driver, other passengers, and Mexican authorities are centered in Mexico.

Under § 146, the law of the place of injury (Mexico) controls unless other factors indicate otherwise. Here, they do not. The Court holds:

• Mexican law will govern the personal injury and wrongful death claims.
• The plaintiffs’ negligence per se claims explicitly rest on alleged violations of Mexican law.
• Even if Texas law governs the contract and fraud claims, Mexican law will control the majority of claims and the most fact-intensive issues.

Public interest considerations thus support trying the case in a forum “at home with” Mexican law. Texas also has limited direct interest compared to Mexico and Alabama:

• The accident, victims (other than Maria), and investigative actions are in Mexico.
• Texas’s main connection is Greyhound’s headquarters; there is no Texas resident plaintiff.

The Court rejects plaintiffs’ policy argument that Texas should retain the case so Texas companies can “redress their grievances” at home, noting:

• The Texas company here (Greyhound) is defending a suit, not seeking to “redress grievances.”
• Legislative policy protecting Texas residents is already codified in § 71.051(e), which bars forum non conveniens dismissal when the plaintiff is a Texas resident—a circumstance not present here.

Conclusion on Factor 5: Both private and public interests “predominate in favor” of a Mexican forum.

G. Factor 6 – Duplication or Proliferation of Litigation

Section 71.051(b)(6) asks whether dismissal would cause “unreasonable duplication or proliferation of litigation.” Plaintiffs emphasized that:

• The case had already been litigated for several years in Texas.
• It was “almost ready for trial.”

The Court responds:

• Plaintiffs did not show why their existing work (depositons, documents) could not “be fully used in a trial in Mexico” (Oceanografia).
• Some duplication is inevitable when a case is moved, but such duplication is not “unreasonable” here.
• Greyhound’s forum non conveniens motion was timely under § 71.051(d); it should not be “punished” because the trial court erroneously denied the motion and allowed litigation to progress.

Conclusion on Factor 6: There is no unreasonable duplication or proliferation. This factor, like the other five, favors dismissal.

V. Precedents and Authorities Cited

The opinion’s reasoning is heavily anchored in prior Texas and federal decisions. Key precedents include:

1. In re ENSCO Offshore International Co., 311 S.W.3d 921 (Tex. 2010)

Used for several propositions:

• Neither party bears a formal burden of proof; the trial court should act on the “greater weight of the evidence” in forum non conveniens decisions.
• An alternate forum is “available” where the defendant is “amenable to process.”
• Even where some witnesses are in the United States, if the “vast majority” are abroad, unavailability of compulsory process favors dismissal.
• Texas uses the “most significant relationship” test and Restatement § 146 for choice-of-law in injury and wrongful death cases.

2. In re General Electric Co., 271 S.W.3d 681 (Tex. 2008)

Relied on for:

• Mandamus standard: when all § 71.051(b) factors favor dismissal, denial is an abuse of discretion reviewable by mandamus.
• The idea that differences in foreign procedures/substantive law are relevant only when the alternative forum “in substance” affords no remedy.
• The power of Texas courts to condition dismissal on the alternate forum’s acceptance of jurisdiction and the appearance of key witnesses.
• Rejection of plaintiff-controlled reasons for resisting dismissal (similar to the Court’s treatment of plaintiffs’ refusal to consent to Mexican jurisdiction here).

3. In re Pirelli Tire, L.L.C., 247 S.W.3d 670 (Tex. 2007)

Important for:

• Confirming Mexico as an available and adequate forum in auto accident cases involving Mexico.
• Explaining that a foreign forum is adequate if it does not deprive plaintiffs of “all remedies,” even if it lacks juries or robust American-style discovery.
• Emphasizing that plaintiffs’ choice of forum, although owed “great deference,” can yield to public interest and fairness considerations.
• Illuminating how a plurality + concurrence can collectively form a majority on certain principles (used here to shore up Pirelli’s authority).

4. In re Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, 459 S.W.3d 565 (Tex. 2015)

Cited to show:

• Mexico is an available forum in vehicular accident cases involving Mexican roads.
• Stipulations by defendants (submitting to jurisdiction, waiving limitations) support a finding of availability and adequacy.

5. In re Oceanografia, S.A. de C.V., 494 S.W.3d 728 (Tex. 2016)

Used to:

• Illustrate that Mexican courts provide more than “no remedy at all.”
• Highlight that even when much of the evidence is documentary, live testimony is still necessary to explain events and records.
• Demonstrate that past litigation activity in Texas, without more, does not create “unreasonable” duplication when the case is refiled abroad.

6. In re Weatherford International, LLC, 688 S.W.3d 874 (Tex. 2024)

Relied on for:

• Reaffirming that an alternate forum exists where the defendant is amenable to process.
• Reiterating that adequacy requires more than a showing of less favorable foreign law.
• Supporting the Court’s refusal to let plaintiffs defeat dismissal for reasons entirely within their control.

7. In re Mahindra, USA Inc., 549 S.W.3d 541 (Tex. 2018)

Cited to note:

• Section 71.051 governs personal injury and wrongful death; common-law forum non conveniens applies in other contexts.
• The doctrines substantially overlap.
• Plaintiffs’ forum choice receives “great deference,” but can yield to public and fairness interests.

8. Long Distance International, Inc. v. Telefonos de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., 49 S.W.3d 347 (Tex. 2001)

Central to the foreign-law discussion:

• Labels Rule 203 a “hybrid rule” combining evidentiary presentation with legal determination.
• Confirms that determinations of foreign law are legal questions reviewed de novo.

9. Lake Jackson Medical Spa, Ltd. v. Gaytan, 640 S.W.3d 830 (Tex. 2022)

Provides the standard for judicial admissions:

• A “clear, deliberate, and unequivocal factual allegation” in a live pleading, not pleaded in the alternative, is a binding judicial admission.
• Such admissions conclusively establish the fact and bar the pleader from disputing it.
• The Court uses this framework to hold that Greyhound’s crossclaim statements about jurisdiction and venue for indemnity do not admit that Texas is the proper forum for plaintiffs’ underlying tort claims.

10. In re Nationwide Insurance Co. of America, 494 S.W.3d 708 (Tex. 2016); G.T. Leach Builders, LLC v. Sapphire V.P., LP, 458 S.W.3d 502 (Tex. 2015)

These arbitration cases inform the waiver analysis:

• Nationwide: Defines waiver as the “intentional relinquishment of a known right” or conduct “inconsistent with claiming that right.”
• G.T. Leach:
  • A party may waive arbitration by “substantially invoking the judicial process to the other party’s prejudice.”
  • Mere filing of cross-actions does not necessarily constitute such substantial invocation.
  • Litigation conduct aimed at defending oneself and minimizing expenses does not amount to waiver.

The Court imports this logic to forum non conveniens: Greyhound’s post-denial crossclaim, meant to preserve indemnity rights in the event the case remained in Texas, is consistent with defending itself and not an intentional waiver of its forum non conveniens rights.

VI. Foreign Law as a Question of Law: Clarifying Rule 203

A notable doctrinal reaffirmation in In re Greyhound is the clarification of how Texas courts treat foreign law:

• Foreign law issues are not questions of fact for the jury or findings based on expert “credibility.”
• Rather, they are questions of law determined by the judge, much like statutory interpretation.
• On appeal, determinations of foreign law are reviewed de novo—appellate courts independently examine the materials and are not bound by the trial court’s view.

Consequences for trial practice include:

• Parties must treat foreign-law development similarly to briefing a legal issue, supported by expert declarations and reference materials.
• Trial courts should be cautious about resolving foreign-law disputes purely as “battles of experts.”
• Appellate courts remain free to re-evaluate foreign-law materials without deference.

In this case, the trial court effectively credited plaintiffs’ expert over Greyhound’s on the “necessary party” issue; the Supreme Court, applying de novo review, re-interpreted the underlying Mexican case summaries and rejected the trial court’s interpretation.

VII. Waiver and Judicial Admissions: Effect of Greyhound’s Crossclaim

A. Judicial Admissions

Plaintiffs argued that statements in Greyhound’s crossclaim judicially admitted Texas as the proper forum. The crossclaim alleged:

1. The trial court had jurisdiction over Estrella Blanca due to its Texas contract with Greyhound “for claims and litigation brought in the United States against Greyhound.”
2. Dallas County was a proper venue for the crossclaim because breach of Estrella Blanca’s indemnity obligations occurred there.

The Court rejects this argument:

• These are statements about jurisdiction and venue for Greyhound’s indemnity claim against Estrella Blanca, not about the optimal forum for the plaintiffs’ tort claims.
• They are not “clear, deliberate, and unequivocal” factual admissions that the underlying personal injury/wrongful death claims “belong” in Texas.
• The forum non conveniens question turns on statutory factors, not on collateral statements made in a different context.

B. Waiver of Forum Non Conveniens by Filing a Crossclaim

Plaintiffs also contended that Greyhound waived its forum non conveniens rights by filing a crossclaim after the trial court denied its dismissal motion.

The Court’s reasoning mirrors arbitration waiver doctrine:

• Waiver requires intentional relinquishment of a known right or conduct inconsistent with asserting that right (Nationwide).
• Filing cross-actions alone does not necessarily waive a right to arbitration (G.T. Leach); by analogy, it does not necessarily waive forum non conveniens.
• Here, Greyhound’s crossclaim was a protective measure, filed “in the alternative,” to secure indemnity if forced to litigate in Texas. That conduct is consistent with defending itself, not with abandoning its motion to dismiss.
• Plaintiffs showed no prejudice arising from the crossclaim itself.

The Court concludes that neither a judicial admission nor waiver occurred, preserving Greyhound’s right to mandamus relief based on the original, timely forum non conveniens motion.

VIII. Complex Concepts Simplified

A. Forum Non Conveniens in Plain Terms

Forum non conveniens is a doctrine that allows a court to decline jurisdiction and dismiss a case when there is another forum that is clearly more appropriate and convenient for the dispute. In Texas, for personal injury and wrongful death cases:

• The court must consider specific statutory factors about alternate forums, fairness, convenience, and duplication of litigation.
• Even when a Texas court technically has jurisdiction, it may dismiss in favor of a foreign forum (here, Mexican courts) when the case is substantially foreign and litigating in Texas would be unfair or inefficient.

B. “Available” vs. “Adequate” Alternate Forum

Two distinct, but often confused, requirements:

• Available forum: The defendant can be sued there; the court can take jurisdiction (often satisfied by the defendant’s stipulation to appear and waive limitations).
• Adequate forum: The foreign legal system offers some meaningful remedy and does not deny basic fairness, even if its procedures and damages rules differ from Texas’s.

A forum is not “inadequate” merely because it doesn’t offer a jury, punitive damages, or robust discovery. Only when the foreign forum offers “no remedy at all” is it deemed inadequate.

C. The Mexican “Amparo”

The opinion briefly mentions “amparo,” describing it as an interlocutory appellate procedure in Mexico that can delay final judgment. Plaintiffs invoked amparo to argue that Mexican litigation would be slow and complex. The Texas Supreme Court declines to treat this as a basis for inadequacy, treating it as one of many procedural differences that do not deprive plaintiffs of “all remedies.”

D. Mandamus Proceedings

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued by higher courts to correct clear abuses of discretion by lower courts when ordinary appeal is inadequate. In this context:

• Greyhound could not effectively remedy an improper forum non conveniens denial after final judgment—it would already have borne the burdens of litigating in the wrong forum.
• The Supreme Court therefore used mandamus to correct the trial court’s error now, before trial, and direct dismissal under proper conditions.

E. Choice of Law and the “Most Significant Relationship” Test

In wrongful death and personal injury suits, Texas applies the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 146:

• Presumption: Use the law of the place where the injury occurred.
• Consider: Where the conduct occurred, where the parties reside, and where their relationship is centered.

In this case, those factors pointed strongly toward Mexican law governing the tort claims, reinforcing why a Mexican court is the more appropriate forum.

IX. Practical and Doctrinal Impact

A. Transnational Tort Litigation Involving Mexico

In re Greyhound fits within, and strengthens, a line of Texas decisions that favor dismissal to Mexican courts when:

• The accident and investigation occur in Mexico,
• Most witnesses and physical evidence are there, and
• The plaintiffs are non-Texas residents (foreign or out-of-state).

The message to litigants:

• Non-Texas plaintiffs should expect a heavy presumption in favor of Mexican forums for accidents occurring there, especially in vehicle crash cases.
• Texas corporate connections (e.g., headquarters in Dallas) are not enough to keep such cases in Texas when Mexican contacts predominate.

B. Use of Stipulations by Defendants

The case underscores the strategic value of stipulations:

• Agreeing to submit to foreign jurisdiction and waive limitations is often decisive in establishing “availability.”
• Defendants can further strengthen their position by accepting conditions (e.g., producing witnesses and documents in the foreign forum) that the trial court may impose under § 71.051(c).

Plaintiffs facing such stipulations will find “availability” and “adequacy” arguments difficult, especially when directed at Mexico, which the Court has repeatedly recognized as a viable forum.

C. Limits on “Comparative Law” Objections

The opinion strongly limits litigants’ ability to resist forum non conveniens dismissal by pointing to:

• Differences in damage categories (e.g., lack of punitive damages),
• Absence of juries,
• Different causation standards, discovery rules, or appellate procedures.

Unless those differences combine to deny plaintiffs any meaningful remedy, they will not support a finding of inadequacy. This reinforces comity toward foreign legal systems and discourages arguments that amount to “our system is better than theirs.”

D. Clarifying Foreign Law Determinations

By emphasizing de novo review of foreign law, the Court signals:

• Trial courts must ground their foreign-law determinations in coherent legal analysis, not mere expert preference.
• Appellate courts will scrutinize trial courts’ interpretations of foreign legal materials, as in the rejection of the “missing driver as necessary party” rationale.

This increases predictability and consistency in foreign-law-related forum non conveniens disputes.

E. Safe Use of Crossclaims and Defensive Pleadings

The decision reassures defendants that they can:

• File crossclaims or third-party claims to protect indemnity and contribution rights, even after a trial court denies a forum non conveniens motion,
• Without automatically waiving their forum non conveniens objections or judicially admitting that Texas is the proper forum.

This is particularly important in complex, multi-party international cases where defendants must preserve contingent rights while still contesting the suitability of the forum.

F. Guidance for Trial Courts

For Texas trial judges, In re Greyhound supplies clear guidance:

• All six statutory factors must be considered; focusing only on perceived “availability” or “adequacy” issues can lead to reversible error.
• Mexican courts are presumptively both available and adequate in cross-border accident cases, especially when defendants stipulate to jurisdiction and waive limitations.
• Concerns about missing defendants, differences in procedure, or foreign legal reforms require careful legal analysis and generally will not defeat dismissal.
• Courts should make robust use of conditional dismissals under § 71.051(c) to address uncertainties about foreign jurisdiction and witness availability.

X. Conclusion

In re Greyhound Lines, Inc. reinforces and refines Texas law on statutory forum non conveniens in cross-border personal injury and wrongful death cases. The Court:

• Affirms that Mexico remains an available and adequate forum for litigation stemming from Mexican accidents, especially when the defendant stipulates to jurisdiction and waives limitations.
• Clarifies that differences in remedies, procedure, and appellate mechanisms like “amparo” do not reduce Mexican courts to providing “no remedy at all.”
• Reiterates that foreign law is a question of law, to be determined under Rule 203 and reviewed de novo, limiting the weight of trial-level expert battles.
• Holds that defendants do not waive forum non conveniens rights, nor judicially admit Texas as a proper forum, merely by filing protective crossclaims after an erroneous denial.
• Applies the most significant relationship test to conclude that Mexican law predominates, thereby strengthening the case for a Mexican forum under public-interest considerations.

Collectively, these holdings solidify a consistent, defendant-protective approach to transnational tort litigation involving Mexican accidents, sharpen the analytical tools for handling foreign law in Texas courts, and offer clear procedural and strategic guidance to litigants and judges navigating forum non conveniens disputes.