02-24-00222-CV
Tex. App.Nov 27, 2024Background
- Octavio Peguero died after falling from a fourth story while working as an electrician on a hotel construction site in Texas; the hotel was owned by NP Hospitality, a franchisee of Hilton Franchise Holding LLC (Hilton).
- Octavio’s daughters sued multiple defendants, including Hilton, for negligence, gross negligence, and wrongful death, alleging Hilton controlled the site via a franchise relationship.
- Hilton filed a special appearance, asserting Texas courts had neither general nor specific personal jurisdiction over it, as it was a Virginia-based LLC with no operational control over the Texas hotel or direct business presence in Texas.
- The Pegueros argued Hilton should be subject to specific jurisdiction, citing Hilton’s alleged control over the site and its Texas franchise agreement, and requested remand for jurisdictional discovery if needed.
- The trial court denied Hilton’s special appearance without specific findings, and Hilton appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| General jurisdiction over Hilton | Hilton failed to conclusively negate it | Not alleged by plaintiffs; no basis | Plaintiffs did not properly plead or argue it; no general jurisdiction. |
| Specific jurisdiction based on control | Hilton controlled injury-causing conduct | No operational or personnel control | Hilton provided evidence of no control; court found no specific jurisdiction. |
| Specific jurisdiction via franchise | Franchise agreement ties to Texas injury | Franchise agreement insufficient | Franchise agreement alone does not confer specific jurisdiction. |
| Remand for jurisdictional discovery | Requested if special appearance granted | No proper motion/affidavit filed | No proper request or affidavit for discovery; court rendered dismissal, not remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (general jurisdiction is limited to where a corporation is at home; exceptional cases rare)
- LG Chem Am., Inc. v. Morgan, 670 S.W.3d 341 (burden-shifting for personal jurisdiction challenges; requirements for Texas exercise of personal jurisdiction)
- Luciano v. SprayFoamPolymers.com, LLC, 625 S.W.3d 1 (distinguishes general/specific jurisdiction and establishes standards for purposeful availment and minimum contacts)
- Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (specific jurisdiction requires substantial connection to operative facts)
- BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, 581 U.S. 402 (rejects general jurisdiction where company conducts only a small percentage of business in state)
- Moncrief Oil Int’l Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, 414 S.W.3d 142 (but-for causation alone insufficient for specific jurisdiction)