John Feeney v. Morfin Capital Group LLC and Medone Texas MSO, LLC
05-22-01375-CV
Tex. App.Aug 20, 2024Background
- Morfin Capital Group LLC and MedOne Texas MSO, LLC (plaintiffs) sued John Feeney (Wisconsin resident) and others, alleging fraudulent inducement related to the sale of MedOne’s assets.
- Plaintiffs alleged Feeney, as CEO of One Health, together with others, made false statements in Texas about One Health’s finances to induce MedOne to sell assets.
- Feeney filed a special appearance, claiming lack of personal jurisdiction as he had no meaningful contacts with Texas.
- Plaintiffs amended their pleadings, specifying Feeney’s role, his alleged contacts in Texas, and misrepresentations.
- After a hearing, the trial court denied Feeney’s special appearance, finding sufficient jurisdictional facts. Feeney appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sufficiency of Pleadings & Proof | Alleged Feeney made fraudulent statements in Texas, sufficient for jurisdiction | No specific, individualized allegations against Feeney; only vague, collective acts | Sufficient allegations; Feeney did not factually dispute making statements in Texas |
| 2. Minimal Contacts / Individual Capacity | Feeney, whether as CEO or individual, committed tort in Texas, meeting minimum contacts | Only actions as officer, not individually; contract limits ties to Texas | Personal jurisdiction proper; officer not shielded from tort-based jurisdiction |
| 3. Fiduciary Shield Doctrine | Does not apply to torts personally committed by officers | Fiduciary shield applies; actions were corporate, not personal | Doctrine does not apply to personal torts in the state |
| 4. Due Process / Fair Play | Feeney benefited from fraud in Texas; Texas has interest; burden not excessive | Allegations vague, contacts fortuitous, process unfair | Sufficient minimum contacts; exercise of jurisdiction comports with fair play |
Key Cases Cited
- Old Republic Nat’l Title Ins. Co. v. Bell, 549 S.W.3d 550 (Texas 2018) (minimum contacts and due process in personal jurisdiction)
- LG Chem Am., Inc. v. Morgan, 670 S.W.3d 341 (Texas 2023) (Texas long-arm statute’s reach and burden-shifting in special appearances)
- TV Azteca v. Ruiz, 490 S.W.3d 29 (Texas 2016) (contacts for personal jurisdiction assessed individually per defendant)
- Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Texas 2007) (purposeful availment and case-linked jurisdiction)
- Moncrief Oil Intern. Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, 414 S.W.3d 142 (Texas 2013) (elements of purposeful availment for jurisdiction)
- Guardian Royal Exch. Assur., Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.C., 815 S.W.2d 223 (Texas 1991) (factors relevant to fair play and substantial justice)