327 S.W.3d 357
Tex. App.2010Background
- In August 2006, two U.S. residents were killed in Mexico in a truck accident involving a Lacto trailer and a TMM tractor; Lacto and TMM are Mexican companies owned by Grupo TMM S.A.B.
- Plaintiffs in Houston, Texas filed wrongful-death, survival, and personal injury claims against Lacto, TMM, and Grupo.
- Mexican Companies filed special appearances; trial court denied without written findings of fact and conclusions of law.
- Plaintiffs alleged at least some Texas contacts through the Mexican Companies; Mexican Companies challenged personal jurisdiction.
- Appellants argue no basis for either specific or general jurisdiction; the trial court’s denial is reviewed de novo on appeal.
- Court remands with instruction to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Mexican Companies have specific jurisdiction in Texas. | Plaintiffs contend TX contacts relate to the claims. | Mexican Companies argue no substantial connection to Texas claims. | No specific jurisdiction; sustained in part. |
| Whether Lacto and TMM are subject to general jurisdiction in Texas. | Plaintiffs assert continuous, systematic contacts with Texas. | Contacts are insufficient; no general presence in Texas. | No general jurisdiction for Lacto and TMM. |
| Whether Grupo is subject to general jurisdiction in Texas. | Grupo allegedly has independent Texas contacts or imputable acts. | Contacts insufficient; cannot impute to Grupo. | No general jurisdiction for Grupo. |
| Whether pleading defects in special appearances were waived; or whether defenses were preserved. | Affidavits may be defectively sworn but can be cured; arguments waived. | Plaintiffs waived by not raising defect in trial court. | Pleading defect waived; issues resolved on jurisdictional grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spir Star AG v. Kimich, 310 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2010) (framework for reviewing personal jurisdiction; de novo standard)
- Am. Type Culture Collection, Inc. v. Coleman, 83 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. 2002) (long-arm and minimum contacts; general vs. specific distinctions)
- Bearry v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 818 F.2d 370 (5th Cir. 1987) (flow of goods into Texas not sufficient for general jurisdiction)
- Reyes v. Marine Drilling Cos., 944 S.W.2d 401 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1997) (flow of goods not enough for general jurisdiction; Texas as conduit)
- Felch v. Transportes Lar-Mex S.A. de C.V., 92 F.3d 320 (5th Cir. 1996) (drayage border-crossing insufficient for general jurisdiction)