Mechanism 12

Holding your forum against a special appearance

By John P. Henry · Tex. R. Civ. P. 120a; In re Laibe Corp., 307 S.W.3d 314 (Tex. 2010); In re Lisa Laser USA, Inc., 310 S.W.3d 880 (Tex. 2010) · Reviewed 2026-08-02

The authority

Forum selection clauses are presumptively valid. Allowing a lawsuit to proceed in a forum other than that for which the parties contracted promotes forum shopping with its attendant judicial inefficiency, waste of judicial resources, delays of adjudication of the merits, and skewing of settlement dynamics.In re Laibe Corp., 307 S.W.3d 314, 316 (Tex. 2010) (per curiam); In re Lisa Laser USA, Inc., 310 S.W.3d 880, 883 (Tex. 2010) (per curiam)

Tex. R. Civ. P. 120a; In re Laibe Corp., 307 S.W.3d 314 (Tex. 2010); In re Lisa Laser USA, Inc., 310 S.W.3d 880 (Tex. 2010)

When it applies

Any Texas suit against a non-resident on a contract that fixes venue and forum in Texas — franchise agreements, service agreements, supply contracts, physician and provider agreements. It is the whole ballgame in a volume program, because a defendant who can force the case back to its home state has effectively won: the cost of suing in eleven states individually exceeds most of the claims.

How it is proved up

1. Read the special appearance for what it does not say. The recurring pattern is a well-drafted minimum-contacts brief that never mentions the clause its own client signed. Say so in the first paragraph of the response.
2. Quote the clause exactly, and attach the executed agreement to a business-records affidavit from the client’s custodian — not to the brief.
3. Confirm the clause is mandatory rather than permissive. “Shall be in the courts of Bexar County” is mandatory; “the parties consent to jurisdiction in” is not always.
4. Cite Laibe and Lisa Laser for the presumption and for the forum-shopping rationale — the Texas Supreme Court has granted mandamus to enforce these clauses, which is worth the court knowing.
5. Set the hearing. Rule 120a requires the special appearance to be heard and determined before any other plea or motion, so nothing else in the case moves until it is disposed of. Leaving it unset stalls the file, and in this program one matter sat that way for months.

What defeats it

• No clause, or a clause that does not appear in the version this defendant actually signed. Check the specific executed agreement, not the form.
• A permissive clause, which consents to jurisdiction without excluding other forums.
• A defendant who never signed — a guarantor, an assignee or a successor entity is a different analysis.
• Genuine unfairness or a statutory bar. Enforcement is presumptive, not automatic.
• Sometimes it simply does not hold: one matter in this program was closed because jurisdiction properly lay in Kentucky. Being told that early is cheaper than being told it at the hearing.

Where I have used it

United Biologics, LLC d/b/a United Allergy Services — a San Antonio company’s nationwide collection program, sixty-six matters brought in the Bexar County courts against medical practices in Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, New Mexico, Tennessee, Louisiana, Maryland and Texas. In United Biologics v. Roswell Medical Clinic, Inc., Cause No. 2016CV03161, County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, the defendant’s special appearance was answered with the clause and the executed agreement. Same answer in Twin Med Urgent Care, Cause No. 2016CV03165, and William Wallace Anderson, M.D., Cause No. 2016CV05064.

The order