Glencove Holdings ended a contract with appellant Bloom Business Jets for crew and maintenance services. Appellant put a lien on its plane, and Glencove sued for a declaratory judgment on the amount and validity of the lien, along with other causes of action. Appellant moved to dismiss for lack for personal jurisdiction, because the contract required litigation to be brought in Colorado, and also filed a special appearance. Although Glencove paid the lien before the trial court heard the motion, the court held that it had jurisdiction over the lien question (though not the other claims) and ordered a temporary injunction on appellant. Appellant petitioned for a writ of mandamus, and the next day the court entered a written order denying appellant's special appearance and motion to dismiss without stating a reason. An appeal followed. The court found that forum-selection clause, requiring "litigation involving this Agreement" to be brought in Colorado, was valid and applied to the lien. The court rejected Glencove's argument that appellant's lien did not fall within the scope of the contract because it was filed after Glencove terminated the contract. The court found that the phrase "litigation involving this Agreement" included the lien, whereas narrower language such as "arising under" an agreement might not, because appellant filed the lien in an attempt to collect under the contract. The court also rejected Glencove's argument that it was forced to file an action in Texas to avoid foreclosure on its plane by its lender; the court recognized that the lender requested Glencove to pay or contest the lien but noted that Glencove did not explain why it could not take that action in Colorado. Lastly, the court found that all other claims were also "involving" the contract, and held that appellant's motion to dismiss therefore must granted in its entirety. The court conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, directed the trial court to vacate its orders and dismiss the suit, and dismissed as moot the appeal on the special appearance question. In Re Bloom, Houston 1st Court of Appeals, Case No. 01-16-00832-CV, 5/9/17.
HARVEY BROWN, JUSTICE