Kenneth Lobell v. Capital Transport, LLC
03-13-00855-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 15, 2015Background
- Plaintiffs (Capital Transport, Capital Oil Field Services, and Chad Denton) sued Kenneth Lobell (Louisiana resident) in Bell County, Texas, alleging breach of a partnership agreement and torts arising from a multi-state man-camp/oil-field services venture.
- Plaintiffs allege Lobell agreed to fund and be sole member of Capital Lodging, to enter an operating agreement splitting profits, and to use a Chase bank account and operations centered in Round Rock, Texas; plaintiffs presented bank records, photographs, and testimony showing billing and communications emanating from Round Rock.
- Lobell purchased North Dakota land for the camp, registered a Louisiana LLC, filed competing suits in North Dakota and Louisiana, and filed a verified special appearance in Texas denying Texas contacts; he did not appear at the Texas special-appearance hearing and offered no affidavits rebutting plaintiffs’ evidence.
- The trial court sustained special appearances for Lobell’s companies but overruled Lobell’s special appearance; Lobell appealed interlocutorily under Texas Rule 120a and Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(7).
- The court analyzed specific personal jurisdiction under Texas’s long-arm statute and federal due-process limits, focusing on purposeful availment/minimum contacts and whether asserting jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial justice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lobell purposefully availed himself of Texas by forming/ funding the venture and creating ongoing obligations with Texas residents | Lobell negotiated, agreed to fund and participate, discussed using a Round Rock Chase account, and created continuing relationships and business activity centered in Texas | Lobell denied minimum contacts; asserted all relevant activity occurred in North Dakota or Louisiana and pointed to pending foreign actions | Held: Plaintiffs’ pleadings and evidence established purposeful availment and minimum contacts with Texas; Lobell failed to rebut |
| Whether Lobell negated all bases for jurisdiction after plaintiffs met their pleading burden | Plaintiffs relied on affidavit, testimony, bank records, bills to show Texas-centric operations and communications | Lobell submitted only a verified special appearance and documentary excerpts from other proceedings; no affidavits contradicting plaintiffs’ evidence | Held: Lobell did not carry his burden to negate jurisdiction; his conclusory denials were insufficient |
| Whether exercising jurisdiction would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice | Plaintiffs argued Texas has strong interests, plaintiffs’ convenience and judicial efficiency favor Texas, and burden on Lobell is minimal (Louisiana resident; already litigating elsewhere) | Lobell argued constitutional unfairness due to nonresident status and alternate fora | Held: Exercise of jurisdiction is consistent with fair play and substantial justice; Texas’s and plaintiffs’ interests outweigh any burden on Lobell |
Key Cases Cited
- Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007) (defines purposeful availment and relatedness for specific jurisdiction under Texas law)
- BMC Software Belg., N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (Texas long-arm statute interpreted to the limits of federal due process)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (continuing obligations to forum residents can create purposeful availment)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts standard for personal jurisdiction)
- Moncrief Oil Int’l, Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, 414 S.W.3d 142 (Tex. 2013) (standards for minimum contacts and relatedness for specific jurisdiction)
- Spir Star AG v. Kimich, 310 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2010) (factors for determining whether jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial justice)
- Retamco Operating, Inc. v. Republic Drilling Co., 278 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. 2009) (purposeful availment when defendant seeks benefits of forum; plaintiff’s interest in forum where litigation began)