Meldi Hospitality Management v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
MELDI HOSPITALITY
MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Plaintiff.
V.
MT. HAWLEY INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-cv-00397
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE
On January 6, 2026, Judge Jeffrey V. Brown referred all pretrial matters in
this case to me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See Dkt. 17. Pending before me
is a motion to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York filed by Defendant Mt. Hawley Insurance Company. See
Dkt. 8. Having considered the briefing and the applicable law, I grant the motion
and transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York.1
Plaintiff Meldi Hospitality Management, LLC filed suit against Mt. Hawley
in the 149th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, for property
insurance coverage for its commercial property under a policy that Meldi has with
Mt. Hawley (the “Policy”). Mt. Hawley timely removed the action to this Court and
filed the instant motion to transfer venue.
“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a
district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it
might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have
1 “An order issued by a magistrate judge transferring venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is
non-dispositive.” Arena IP, LLC v. New England Patriots, LLC, No. 4:23-cv-00428, 2023
WL 8711081, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2023) (cleaned up).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
January 23, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 3:25-cv-00397 Document 24 Filed 01/23/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). A forum-selection clause may be enforced under
§ 1404(a) through a motion to transfer. See Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct.
for W. Dist. of Tex., 571 U.S. 49, 52 (2013). “[F]orum-selection clauses are prima
facie valid and should be enforced unless enforcement is shown by the resisting
party to be unreasonable under the circumstances.” Barnett v. DynCorp Int’l,
L.L.C., 831 F.3d 296, 302 (5th Cir. 2016) (cleaned up).
Mt. Hawley contends that “[b]y filing suit against Mt. Hawley in Texas,
[Meldi] violated the Policy’s mandatory forum selection clause that requires any
litigation to be brought only in New York.” Dkt. 8 at 12. The Policy states, in
relevant part: “Any litigation arising out of or relating to this Policy shall be
brought only in the state or federal courts of New York.” Dkt. 8-1 at 98. Mt. Hawley
contends that this court “should enforce this provision and grant Mt. Hawley’s
motion because the Policy’s forum selection clause is valid, enforceable, and
mandatory.” Dkt. 8 at 13. In support, Mt. Hawley directs this court to more than
70 cases in which it has “prevailed on this transfer issue.” Id.; see also id. at 13–18
(citing 74 cases in total).
The parties do not dispute that this litigation arises out of or relates to the
Policy. Accordingly, the forum-selection clause is prima facie valid and should be
enforced. In the face of overwhelming case law suggesting that this case must be
transferred, Meldi raises an issue that it claims “has not been briefed or decided in
Mt. Hawley’s prior cases.” Dkt. 20 at 7. The issue is “whether a forum selection
clause violates clearly established Texas statutory public policy embodied in Article
21.42.” Id.
Meldi argues that article 21.42 of the Texas Insurance Code should be
dispositive. Article 21.42 provides that:
Any contract of insurance payable to any citizen or inhabitant of this
State by any insurance company or corporation doing business within
this State shall be held to be a contract made and entered into under
and by virtue of the laws of this State relating to insurance, and
governed 	thereby, 	notwithstanding 	such 	policy 	or 	contract 	of
insurance may provide that the 	contract was executed and the
Case 3:25-cv-00397 Document 24 Filed 01/23/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
premiums and policy (in case it becomes a demand) should be payable
without this State, or at the home office of the company or corporation
issuing the same.
As Mt. Hawley notes in its reply, “multiple published opinions have expressly
rejected [Meldi]’s ill-conceived 21.42 position.” Dkt. 23 at 2. To borrow the words
of my esteemed colleague, Judge Lee Rosenthal:
The Texas Supreme Court has made clear that article 21.42 and
similar provisions of Texas law are not expressions of public policy
sufficient to defeat a valid forum-selection and choice-of-law clause.
For example, in In re Lyon Fin. Services, Inc., 257 S.W.3d 228 (Tex.
2008) (per curiam), the plaintiff argued that “enforcement of the
[Pennsylvania] forum-selection [and choice-of-law] clause would
unjustly preclude its day in court because Pennsylvania law[, unlike
Texas law,] does not allow a corporation to maintain a cause of action
for usury.” Id. at 234. The court held that, “absent a Texas statute
requiring suit to be brought in Texas, the existence of Texas statutory
law in an area did not establish such Texas public policy as would
negate a contractual forum-selection provision.” Id. (citing In re
AutoNation, Inc., 228 S.W.3d 663, 669 (Tex. 2007)). Article 21.42
does not require suit to be brought in Texas.
Eads v. Spheric Assurance Co., No. CV H-22-4021, 2023 WL 417477, at *3 (S.D.
Tex. Jan. 25, 2023), aff’d, No. 23-20066, 2023 WL 8613609 (5th Cir. Dec. 13,
2023).
Accordingly, Mt. Hawley’s motion to transfer venue (Dkt. 8) is granted. This
case is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.2
SIGNED this ____ day of January 2026.
______________________________
ANDREW M. EDISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2 The federal judges in New York are more than capable of handling the pending motion
to abate. See Dkt. 19.
Case 3:25-cv-00397 Document 24 Filed 01/23/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3