Karen E. Landa v. Charles L. Farris
03-15-00497-CV
| Tex. App. | Nov 30, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Charles Farris (Texas resident) sued nonresident defendant Karen Landa over money related to a real-estate/transactional dispute; Landa filed a special appearance alleging lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Trial court denied Landa’s special appearance; Landa appealed to the Third Court of Appeals (Austin).
- Central factual touchpoints relied on by Farris: an in-person meeting in Dallas, subsequent communications about the transaction, a $15,000 check given in May 2012, removal of Farris’s name from a deed, and Farris’s Texas residency/activities.
- Landa’s core legal position: (1) Farris failed to plead sufficient jurisdictional facts under the Texas long‑arm statute; (2) there is no specific jurisdiction because Landa did not purposefully avail herself of Texas; (3) there is no general jurisdiction because Landa is not “at home” in Texas.
- At the special‑appearance hearing the trial court either implicitly or explicitly assumed Farris met the initial pleading burden and proceeded to require Landa to disprove jurisdiction; Landa contends that assumption was error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Farris) | Defendant's Argument (Landa) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Farris pleaded sufficient facts under Texas long‑arm statute | Pleadings were sufficient and trial court properly proceeded | Farris failed initial pleading burden; issue preserved and trial court erred by treating pleadings as sufficient | Appellant argues error preserved; urges reversal (trial court implicitly found pleadings sufficient) |
| Whether Texas has specific jurisdiction over Landa | Contacts (Dallas meeting, communications, check, deed alteration, Farris’s Texas performance) establish purposeful availment | Contacts are fortuitous, initiated by Farris, or concern performance outside Texas; communications/payments alone insufficient for purposeful availment | Appellant contends evidence legally insufficient to support specific jurisdiction; asks reversal |
| Whether Texas has general jurisdiction over Landa | Landa’s past residence, temporary return to Austin, Texas insurance license, and trust beneficiary status establish continuous & systematic contacts | Contacts are intermittent, Landa primarily resides in Iowa, nonresident license and trust ties insufficient after Daimler/Goodyear | Appellant argues controlling Supreme Court precedent precludes general jurisdiction; asks reversal |
| Preservation/waiver of appellate arguments | Many jurisdictional points were waived or inadequately briefed | Landa asserts she properly preserved and briefed issues with record citations; Rule 38.1(h) should be liberally construed | Appellant maintains issues were preserved and adequately briefed; court should reach merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Ennis v. Loiseau, 164 S.W.3d 698 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005) (special appearance is proper vehicle to challenge amenability to Texas process)
- Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. 2005) (purposeful availment requires defendant’s contacts with forum)
- Freudensprung v. Offshore Tech. Servs., 379 F.3d 327 (5th Cir. 2004) (communications and contract performance alone usually insufficient for specific jurisdiction)
- Holt Oil & Gas Corp. v. Harvey, 801 F.2d 773 (5th Cir. 1986) (payments mailed to forum are not strongly probative of purposeful availment when performance occurs elsewhere)
- Patterson v. Dietze, Inc., 764 F.2d 1145 (5th Cir. 1985) (material performance location governs jurisdictional analysis more than payment location)
- C & H Transportation Co. v. Jensen & Reynolds Constr. Co., 719 F.2d 1267 (5th Cir. 1983) (mailing payments to a forum is not dispositive of purposeful availment)
- KC Smash 01, LLC v. Gerdes, Hendrichson, Ltd., L.L.P., 384 S.W.3d 389 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (contacts must be directed at forum to constitute purposeful availment)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (U.S. 2014) (general jurisdiction appropriate only where defendant is essentially at home in forum)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (U.S. 2011) (same standard for general jurisdiction; affiliations must be so continuous and systematic as to render defendant at home)