Camac v. Dontos
390 S.W.3d 398
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Camic appeals a trial court ruling denying his special appearance in a franchise-dispute suit brought by Jordan and Jennifer Dontos and Crave, LLC (the Dontoses).
- The Dontoses allege violations of the FTC franchise rule, the Texas Business Opportunity Act, the DTPA, and the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, plus fraud, breach, and interference.
- Camac, a California resident, was the VP of Franchise Sales for 24Seven and supervised the Texas sale to the Dontoses.
- Dontoses claim Camac was the principal spokesman/actor in the “shell game” and made misrepresentations/omissions in Texas negotiations and meetings.
- The trial court denied Camac’s special appearance, and Camac appealed under Texas law governing interlocutory appeals of jurisdictional rulings.
- The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Camac had sufficient Texas contacts to support specific jurisdiction and rejecting the fiduciary-shield defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Camac is subject to specific jurisdiction in Texas | Dontos: Camac committed fraud in Texas via Texas meetings and communications. | Camac: contacts were in his corporate capacity; no individual Texas acts. | Yes; Camac had purposeful Texas contacts and acts related to the litigation. |
Key Cases Cited
- CSR Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591 (Tex. 1996) (Texas long-arm inquiry aligns with due process)
- Kelly v. Gen. Interior Constr., Inc., 301 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. 2010) (plaintiff bears initial burden to plead jurisdictional facts; defendant must negate)
- Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007) (minimum contacts and purposeful availment analysis for specific jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice in minimum contacts)
- Asahi Metal Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court of Cal., 480 U.S. 102 (1987) (streamlined framework for purposeful availment and fairness)
- Retamco Operating, Inc. v. Republic Drilling Co., 278 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. 2009) (specific vs. general jurisdiction; focus on relation between contacts and litigation)
- Spir Star AG v. Kimich, 310 S.W.3d 868 (Tex.2010) (minimum contacts and relatedness analysis in Texas)
- Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. 2005) (minimum contacts and purposeful availment; fair-play considerations)
- Petrie v. Widby, 194 S.W.3d 168 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2006) (nonresident travels to Texas and makes representations subject to jurisdiction)
- Wright v. Sage Eng’g, Inc., 137 S.W.3d 238 (Tex. App.-Houston 2004) (corporate officer liability for fraudulent statements despite fiduciary role)
- SITQ E. U., Inc. v. Reata Rests., Inc., 111 S.W.3d 638 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2003) (fiduciary shield doctrine limitations in jurisdictional analysis)
- Deason v. Stein, 165 S.W.3d 406 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005) (jurisdictional due-process considerations and relatedness)