Danziger v. Morgan, 24 F.4th 491

Danziger & De Llano LLP, a Texas law firm, alleges a fee‑sharing arrangement with Ohio firm Morgan Verkamp, LLC and its members after referring multiple qui tam matters.
Danziger claims it referred relator Michael Epp in 2007 and agreed to split fees (33% Morgan Verkamp, 33% Danziger, 34% pro rata), but Morgan Verkamp later represented Epp without informing Danziger.
Morgan Verkamp emailed a fee agreement to Epp (not copying Danziger), filed suit for Epp in Pennsylvania, and obtained over $5 million in fees; Danziger seeks ~$2,133,333 for its share.
Danziger sued in the Southern District of Texas asserting fraud, unjust enrichment, tortious interference with prospective relations, and breach of contract; defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo (facts undisputed) and affirmed dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Specific jurisdiction for intentional torts (fraud, unjust enrichment, tortious interference)	Morgan Verkamp’s nondisclosure and emails injured Danziger in Texas, so specific jurisdiction exists	Conduct occurred outside Texas; effects-only contacts insufficient; only a reply to an unsolicited email was directed at Texas	No jurisdiction — defendant’s conduct did not meaningfully connect it to Texas; single unsolicited reply insufficient (Walden/Sangha)
Specific jurisdiction for breach of contract claim	Fee‑split agreement and negotiations with a Texas firm establish contacts tied to formation/breach	Contract centered and performed outside Texas; defendant did not perform or agree to perform in Texas; communications alone insufficient	No jurisdiction — contacts related to contract formation/breach were insufficient (Trois, Moncrief)
Applicability of cases like Wien Air, Trois, Streber	Those precedents show communications into Texas can establish jurisdiction for tort/contract claims	Those cases involved numerous, initiated, or targeted communications and other forum‑based contacts absent here	Wien Air/Trois distinguishable — here contacts were far fewer and passive, so they do not support jurisdiction

Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (defendant’s intentional conduct must connect the defendant to the forum; mere injury to a forum resident is insufficient)
Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (effects test: intentional conduct targeting the forum and causing harm there can support jurisdiction)
Sangha v. Navig8 ShipManagement Priv. Ltd., 882 F.3d 96 (5th Cir. 2018) (applies Walden: emails that merely affect a forum resident do not establish specific jurisdiction)
Wien Air Alaska, Inc. v. Brandt, 195 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 1999) (communications into forum that contain fraudulent misrepresentations can constitute purposeful availment)
Trois v. Apple Tree Auction Ctr., Inc., 882 F.3d 485 (5th Cir. 2018) (conference‑call misrepresentations insufficient where contract formation/performance occurred outside forum)
Central Freight Lines Inc. v. APA Transportation Corp., 322 F.3d 376 (5th Cir. 2003) (purposeful outreach and negotiations aimed at long‑term association with Texas support jurisdiction)
Moncrief Oil Int’l Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, 481 F.3d 309 (5th Cir. 2007) (contracting with a Texas resident alone does not establish minimum contacts absent purposeful availment)
Electrosource, Inc. v. Horizon Battery Techs., Ltd., 176 F.3d 867 (5th Cir. 1999) (wide‑reaching contacts and contemplated in‑forum performance can support jurisdiction)
Wilson v. Belin, 20 F.3d 644 (5th Cir. 1994) (one unsolicited, uninitiated communication is insufficient to confer jurisdiction)