Gray, Ritter & Graham, PC Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLC Neblett Beard & Arsenault, LLP Don M. Downing And Adam J. Levitt v. Goldman Phipps PLLC F/K/A Goldman Pennebaker & Phipps, PC Mikal C. Watts, PC And Murray Law Firm
511 S.W.3d 639
Tex. App.2015Background
- Multidistrict litigation (MDL) in E.D. Mo. consolidated thousands of claims against Bayer for genetically modified rice contamination; appellants (leadership counsel) were appointed MDL co-lead or executive-committee counsel and performed extensive common-benefit work.
- Appellees (state-court lawyers) prosecuted parallel state-court cases and negotiated a GMB state-court settlement. Bayer’s global peace required coordinated MDL and state-court settlements and creation of a qualified settlement fund administered in Nueces County, Texas.
- Appellants sought common-benefit fees for work benefitting MDL and non‑MDL (state-court) claimants; appellees filed a declaratory-judgment action in Nueces County to construe rights to fees under the state settlement/fund.
- Appellants filed special appearances asserting lack of personal jurisdiction (both general and specific) in Texas; the trial court denied the special appearances after an evidentiary hearing.
- The court of appeals reviewed de novo, examined appellants’ contacts with Texas (direct Texas clients in the MDL, communications/travel to Texas, a MDL website, coordination with Texas counsel, Downing’s settlement trip to Texas), and affirmed denial based on specific jurisdiction and fair-play factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Texas has specific personal jurisdiction over nonresident MDL leadership attorneys | Appellees: appellants purposefully availed themselves of Texas (represented Texas clients, directed common-benefit work used by Texas state cases, negotiated settlements involving Texas, sought fees from Texas-situated fund) | Appellants: their work was performed mainly in Missouri; they were not parties to the state settlement/fund; contacts with Texas were sporadic or incidental | Held: Specific jurisdiction exists — appellants purposefully directed activities at Texas, and the fee dispute arises from those contacts |
| Whether Texas has general jurisdiction over appellants | Appellees: appellants’ systematic representation of Texans supports general jurisdiction | Appellants: contacts are not continuous/systematic to render them "at home" in Texas (Daimler standard) | Held: Court did not address general jurisdiction because specific jurisdiction was sufficient |
| Whether contacts of Texas-based co-counsel (Looper Reed) impute jurisdiction to appellants | Appellees: delegation and coordination with Looper Reed demonstrate purposeful Texas contacts | Appellants: Looper Reed acted independently and their unilateral acts cannot be imputed | Held: Looper Reed’s acts not imputed as agent (no control of means/details), but delegation/communications with Looper Reed still factored into total contacts |
| Whether exercising jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice | Appellees: Texas has strong interest; forum-selection in fund contemplated Nueces County suits; plaintiffs seek convenient, effective relief in Texas | Appellants: litigation in Texas would be burdensome; witnesses and evidence mainly out-of-state | Held: Due‑process interest balanced in favor of Texas — burden on defendants not compelling; exercising jurisdiction is reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (general-jurisdiction requires contacts so "continuous and systematic" defendant is "at home")
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts and due-process foundation for personal jurisdiction)
- Moncrief Oil Int’l Inc. v. OAO Gazprom Exp., LLC, 414 S.W.3d 142 (Tex. 2013) (framework for specific- and general-jurisdiction analysis under Texas law)
- Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007) (purposeful availment and specific-jurisdiction principles)
- BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (procedural standards for special appearances and jurisdictional evidence)
- Spir Star AG v. Kimich, 310 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2010) (burden required to show jurisdiction would offend fair play and substantial justice)
- In re Genetically Modified Rice Litig., 764 F.3d 864 (8th Cir. 2014) (MDL court’s authority to award common-benefit fees and limits on ordering contributions from non-parties)