Herbert Rolnick v. Sight's My Line, Inc., a Florida Corporation Stewart Lantz Riggs, Aleshire & Ray Blazier, Christensen, Bigelow & Vir, P.C. And Adams & Graham
03-15-00335-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 9, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Sight’s My Line, Inc. (SML) and shareholder Stewart Lantz (both Florida domiciliaries) sold Texas retail assets to AOS; disputes arose after AOS defaulted and SML’s security interest was not perfected.
- Herbert Rolnick, a Florida-licensed attorney who represented Lantz/SML in Florida since 1998, reviewed and negotiated transactional documents from Florida and advised Lantz to retain Texas counsel to ensure Texas-law compliance.
- Lantz selected Texas counsel Jason Ray (Riggs, Aleshire & Ray); Ray in turn consulted Paul Browder (Blazier, Christensen, Bigelow & Virr) and later other Texas firms handled enforcement; Ray forwarded Browder’s comments as his own.
- Rolnick emailed drafts to Ray, revised the promissory note based on Ray’s comments (including changing the UCC‑1 filing jurisdiction to Texas), and mailed originals to Ray—Rolnick never traveled to or practiced in Texas and has no Texas contacts beyond communications.
- Plaintiffs sued Rolnick (among others) for malpractice; Rolnick filed a special appearance asserting lack of personal jurisdiction; the trial court overruled it and Rolnick appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Texas courts have specific personal jurisdiction over Rolnick | Rolnick’s emails, calls, and work on a transaction involving Texas assets (and choosing Texas law for certain documents) purposefully directed tortious conduct to Texas | Rolnick’s contacts were performed in Florida for Florida clients; communications with Texas counsel were incidental/fortuitous and do not constitute purposeful availment | Court of appeals brief argues trial court erred; Rolnick says no specific jurisdiction because contacts were with Florida clients and conducted in Florida (appeal seeks reversal) |
| Whether contacts of Texas counsel or the plaintiff can be imputed to Rolnick | Plaintiffs rely on collaboration with Texas lawyers and effects in Texas to support jurisdiction | Rolnick contends other parties’ unilateral or third-party contacts (Ray, Browder, Texas firms, or plaintiff) cannot establish his minimum contacts | Argument: courts should not impute other parties’ contacts to a nonresident defendant for jurisdictional purposes |
| Whether the choice that Texas law govern enforcement creates purposeful availment | Plaintiffs argue choice of Texas law and assets being in Texas create substantial connection to forum | Rolnick argues the choice was made to protect Texas assets by Florida clients and was not a purposeful availment by him | Rolnick maintains such a choice, standing alone, is fortuitous and insufficient for jurisdiction |
| Whether exercising jurisdiction would be fair and reasonable under due process | Plaintiffs emphasize Texas had an interest in adjudicating disputes over Texas assets | Rolnick stresses burden of litigating in Texas, both parties’ Florida domicile, and that all work was performed in Florida | Rolnick argues forum non conveniens/fair‑play factors favor dismissal for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (standard for specific and general jurisdiction and de novo review)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (purposeful availment and foreseeability in forum-state litigation)
- Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (U.S. 2014) (specific-jurisdiction analysis focuses on defendant’s contacts with the forum, not contacts with forum residents)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (U.S. 2014) (limits on general jurisdiction; domicile as paradigm forum for individuals)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (U.S. 2011) (restrictions on general jurisdiction over foreign corporations)
- Guardian Royal Exchange Assur., Ltd. v. English China Clays, 815 S.W.2d 223 (Tex. 1991) (focus on relationship among defendant, forum, and litigation for specific jurisdiction)
- Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. 2005) (Texas long-arm cannot exceed federal due-process limits and cautions against relying on where the injury was felt)
- Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007) (analysis of minimum contacts and requirement that contacts create reasonable anticipation of suit)