Alejandro Diaz v. Luis Aurelio Todd


COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS ALEJANDRO DIAZ, § No. 08-21-00202-CV Appellant, § Appeal from the v. § County Court at Law No. 3 LUIS AURELIO TODD, § of El Paso County, Texas Appellee. § (TC# 2017DCV4425) MEMORANDUM OPINION This appeal—the second go-around for our court—arises out of the trial court’s dismissal of a case for forum non conveniens. Appellant Alejandro Diaz sued Appellee Luis Aurelio Todd over a business dispute involving a medical clinic in Juarez, Mexico. Todd moved to dismiss the case under the equitable doctrine of forum non conveniens, which the trial court granted. In the first appeal from that decision, we reversed based on a question raised by the wording of fact findings and conclusions of law as to a key component of the forum non conveniens doctrine. Diaz v. Todd, 618 S.W.3d 798, 807 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2020, no pet.). We also raised the possibility that the trial court had devalued Diaz’s right to select the forum of his choice based on his immigration status. Id. at 808. On remand, the parties addressed those issues with the trial court, which then entered amended findings and conclusions, and again dismissed the case. We now affirm the trial court’s order dismissing the case for forum non conveniens. I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1 This dispute concerns a Mexican business that performed immigration focused medical examinations for persons seeking to immigrate to the United States. Todd and Diaz first worked together in an entity called Familia Servicios Medicos de la Frontera S.A. de C.V. (Medicos de la Frontera), in which Todd had an ownership interest. After Diaz resigned his position at Medicos de la Frontera in 2013, he began discussing with Todd creating their own business to provide the same kind of services. Eventually, the two agreed to form a Texas partnership that would create a Mexican corporation to operate the business in Mexico. As part of the agreement, Todd was to give up his interest in Medicos de la Frontera, which would have been a competitor with their new venture. Under these plans, Diaz and Todd formed two Mexican corporations, Medicos de Visas S. de R.L. de C.V. (Medicos de Visas) and Examenes Para Visas, S.C. (Examenes Para Visas). Both companies operated exclusively in Mexico, and neither owned property, performed examinations, nor conducted business within the United States. Diaz later claimed that Todd sabotaged the businesses after the U.S. Consulate and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) terminated their endorsement of the businesses due to irregularities in the companies’ vaccine storage practices. Diaz further alleged that Todd never sold his ownership interest Medicos de la Frontera and that members of his family had pressured him to sabotage Medicos de Visas. 1 We set out a more complete factual background of the case in our previous opinion. See Diaz v. Todd, 618 S.W.3d 798, 802-03 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2020, no pet.). There is no need to repeat that here. 2 At the time of the first forum non …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals