Ken Hoagland v. Bill Butcher, Kari Butcher, Butcher & Butcher, and OCTV Partners, LLC, 474 S.W.3d 802

Background

Plaintiff Ken Hoagland, a Texas resident and AFFT board member, alleges he was induced by California defendants William and Kari Butcher and Butcher & Butcher to join and manage OCTV (a California LLC) after representations made during presentations in Houston.
OCTV’s Operating Agreement (and a later modification) governed Hoagland’s compensation; Hoagland alleges he received no compensation and that he was fraudulently induced to enter into and later modify the agreement.
The Butchers traveled to Houston multiple times to solicit and report business to AFFT; an infomercial featuring Hoagland was produced and posted online.
Procedurally, this is the second appeal: on the first appeal this court reversed a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and remanded because appellees’ affidavits were insufficient; on remand appellees filed an amended special appearance and the trial court again dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
On the second appeal the Fourteenth Court held the Texas courts have specific personal jurisdiction over the defendants based on their purposeful contacts (the Houston meetings) and reversed and remanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellees could amend a special appearance after an appeal	Hoagland: amendment post-appeal is improper and allows endless amendment	Appellees: Rule 120a permits amendment to cure defects; prior affidavit defects do not waive the special appearance	Court avoided deciding this question (unnecessary to decision)
Whether the prior opinion created law of the case requiring jurisdiction	Hoagland: prior reversal means court already decided jurisdiction exists	Appellees: prior opinion did not mandate jurisdiction	Court: prior opinion held only that affidavits were insufficient; law-of-the-case not controlling here because jurisdictional merits not previously decided
Whether Texas has specific personal jurisdiction over the Butchers/Butcher & Butcher	Hoagland: defendants purposefully availed themselves by attending Houston meetings, made representations there that induced him to join OCTV and modify compensation	Butchers: key communications were to AFFT (not Hoagland individually), and the alleged fraud modifying the contract occurred by telephone from California; many witnesses/evidence in California; California law governs	Held: Specific jurisdiction exists — the Houston meetings were purposeful, not unilateral, and bear a substantial connection to the operative facts (inducement, contract formation, infomercial)
Whether exercising jurisdiction comports with due process (fair play & substantial justice)	Hoagland: Texas has strong interest; plaintiff is Texas resident; litigation in Texas is convenient and judicially efficient	Butchers: burden of travel, witnesses/evidence in California, choice-of-law concerns	Held: Exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable; defendants failed to present a compelling case to defeat jurisdiction; Texas’s interests and plaintiff convenience weigh in favor of jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

Moncrief Oil Int’l Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, 414 S.W.3d 142 (Tex. 2013) (specific-jurisdiction claim-by-claim analysis; purposeful availment and substantial-connection inquiry)
Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007) (long-arm statute and due-process overview for personal jurisdiction)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (purposeful availment and reasonableness factors for jurisdiction)
Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. 2005) (personal-jurisdiction is question of law though often requires fact findings)
Hoagland v. Butcher, 396 S.W.3d 182 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (prior appellate decision reversing dismissal for insufficient affidavits supporting special appearance)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for legal sufficiency review)