KC Smash 01, LLC v. Gerdes, Hendrichson, Ltd., 384 S.W.3d 389

KC Smash 01, LLC is a Kansas-placed franchisee with its business in Kansas and no Texas property or operations.
KC Smash hired a Dallas-based architectural firm to provide services for its Kansas restaurants; contract was oral and conducted by phone and email.
No KC Smash employee traveled to Texas; firm performed most work in Texas; KC Smash paid via the firm’s Dallas office.
The firm sued KC Smash in Dallas County for breach of contract and related claims; KC Smash filed a special appearance which the trial court denied.
The court conducted a due process/minimum-contacts analysis; found communications and payments to Texas insufficient for jurisdiction and that the firm’s work in Texas was primarily unilateral to the firm.
The court held KC Smash lacked minimum contacts; reversed the denial of the special appearance and rendered dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had personal jurisdiction over KC Smash 01, LLC	KC Smash argues no minimum contacts with Texas existed.	Gerdes contends there were purposeful contacts related to the contract with Texas.	No personal jurisdiction; special appearance granted.

Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. 2005) (phone/email not sufficient for purposefully availing in-state jurisdiction)
BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (de novo review of special appearance; requires fact resolution)
PHC-Minden, L.P. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 235 S.W.3d 163 (Tex. 2007) (framework for specific jurisdiction and minimum contacts)
Asahi Metal Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court of Cal, 480 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1987) (purposeful availment and due process principles)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (minimum contacts and fair play standard)
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980) (concept of not being amenable to jurisdiction lacking forum contacts)