Reported / Citable
Background
The plaintiffs, beneficiaries of the Dominey Insurance Trust of 1993 and the Dominey 2012 Irrevocable Trust, previously sued trustees Barbara Ann Dominey, Teresa Eddinger, and Allison Allen in Texas state court for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. The parties signed a settlement agreement in August 2022 providing that venue for litigation related to the agreement “shall be in Walker County, Texas” unless the parties agreed otherwise.
In this diversity action, the plaintiffs alleged that the trustees breached the settlement agreement and their fiduciary duties by withholding funds and using trust assets for Barbara Dominey’s benefit. They also alleged that West, Webb, Allbritton & Gentry, P.C., which represented the trustees in the earlier litigation, knowingly participated in a fiduciary breach by accepting trust funds for legal work.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed all claims against the individual defendants without prejudice under forum non conveniens. Although Walker County falls within the Houston Division’s geographic jurisdiction, no federal courthouse physically sits there. Under Fifth Circuit precedent governing clauses selecting a particular county, the agreement therefore required litigation against the signatories to proceed in a Texas state court located in Walker County. The court granted the individual defendants’ combined motion only in part and did not reach their request to compel arbitration.
The forum-selection clause did not govern WWAG because the law firm was not a party to the settlement agreement. The court nevertheless conditionally granted WWAG’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion because the complaint alleged no facts supporting a reasonable inference that the firm knew of or participated in the trustees’ alleged breach. Merely alleging that WWAG accepted payment from its client was insufficient, and the complaint also lacked facts showing conduct outside the scope of representation that could overcome Texas attorney immunity. The court allowed the plaintiffs until February 13, 2026, to amend; absent an amendment, the case would be dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- A clause requiring litigation “in” a named county may exclude a federal court that has territorial jurisdiction over the county but does not physically sit there.
- A knowing-participation claim requires factual allegations showing the defendant’s awareness of and participation in the underlying fiduciary breach; conclusory recitations are insufficient.
- Allegations that a law firm accepted fees from its client, without more, did not plausibly establish wrongdoing or conduct outside the protection of Texas attorney immunity.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates that county-specific forum clauses can effectively require a state-court forum when the selected county has no federal courthouse. Parties evaluating venue must distinguish between a federal judicial district’s territorial reach and the physical location where the court sits.
It also underscores the pleading burden for derivative fiduciary-duty claims against lawyers. Plaintiffs must allege concrete facts showing knowing assistance in a breach and conduct that is not protected as part of the lawyer’s representation, although the court ordinarily should permit at least one opportunity to cure pleading defects.