Booth v. Kontomitras
485 S.W.3d 461
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- Interlocutory appeal from denial of special appearances in Texas suit against California residents and Texas-based entities.
- Plaintiff Kontomitras asserts Texas-based contracts and alleged schemes involving Duraworks and related defendants.
- Defendants deny Texas residency and minimum contacts; contend contracts and actions occurred in California.
- Court evaluated Texas long-arm statute 17.042 and due process to determine general/specific jurisdiction.
- Hearing held April 30, 2016; no live witnesses; court denied special appearances; appellate record lacks findings of fact; reversed and remanded for dismissal.
- Court held none of the Appellants had minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction in Texas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether any Appellant has the minimum contacts for Texas jurisdiction. | Kontomitras contends all Appellants purposefully availed themselves of Texas. | Appellants argue contacts are sporadic or California-resident with no Texas-based performance. | No Appellant had minimum contacts; jurisdiction not proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moncrief Oil Int’l, Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, 414 S.W.3d 142 (Tex. 2013) (establishes de novo review and burden-shifting in jurisdictional analysis)
- BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (outlines long-arm and due-process framework for jurisdictional challenges)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (U.S. 2014) (minimum contacts must be based on defendant's own forum-directed conduct)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (U.S. 2011) (general jurisdiction requires essentially home-state presence)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (U.S. 2014) (limits general jurisdiction; continuous and systematic contacts needed)