396 S.W.3d 681
Tex. App.2013Background
- Consolidated appeal of three products-liability cases involving unintended acceleration of Toyota vehicles.
- DENSO Corporation (DENSO Japan) sought special appearances; trial court denied, and the appellate court reverses and remands to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Appellees allege DENSO Japan did business in Texas through ECUs manufactured and sold for Texas vehicles; DENSO Japan asserts it does not sell to Texas, with ECUs largely manufactured in the United States by its subsidiaries.
- DENSO Japan presented evidence of US manufacturing by DENSO Tennessee and sales by DENSO America to Toyota's San Antonio plant; DENSO Japan also showed visits to Texas and limited technical support to US subsidiaries.
- Hall pleaded Texas-long-arm jurisdiction by alleging DENSO Japan did business in Texas; Dweib and Mubarak-Assad lacked Texas-specific allegations; the court analyzes specific and general jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Texas has specific jurisdiction over DENSO Japan. | Hall pleads DENSO Japan committed torts in Texas. | DENSO Japan did not sell or manufacture ECUs in Texas and had no substantial Texas connection. | No specific jurisdiction; Hall's pleading does not establish a substantial connection. |
| Whether DENSO Japan is subject to general jurisdiction in Texas. | DENSO Japan has continuous, systematic contacts with Texas. | DENSO Japan is not at home in Texas; no general presence. | No general jurisdiction; activities do not render DENSO Japan at home in Texas. |
| Whether the pleadings or conduct show DENSO Japan waived jurisdiction challenges by filing in federal court. | (Not clearly argued in opinion; pleads continued jurisdictional assertions.) | (Raised as a challenge to jurisdiction in Texas.) | Not addressed as independent issue in this portion of the opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guardian Royal Exch. Assurance, Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.C., 815 S.W.2d 223 (Tex. 1991) (minimum contacts for due process in jurisdictional analysis)
- Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007) (substantial connection requirement for specific jurisdiction)
- Coleman v. American Optical Corp., 83 S.W.3d 806 (Tex. 2002) (long-arm statutory reach and minimum contacts framework)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) (general jurisdiction limits from ubiquitous contacts)
- PHC-Minden, L.P. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 235 S.W.3d 163 (Tex. 2007) (general jurisdiction requires continuous and systematic presence)