Leticia B. Loya v. Ian Taylor, Jacobus Sterken, Stichting Tinsel Group, Vitol Holding II S.A. and Tinsel Group, S.A.
01-14-01014-CV
| Tex. App. | Mar 25, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Leticia Loya sued multiple foreign defendants (Vitol-related individuals and entities) alleging fraud and breach of fiduciary duty relating to shares and information at issue in her Texas divorce; she amended to add the Vitol defendants in 2014.
- The named appellees (Ian Taylor, Jacobus Sterken, Stichting Tinsel Group, Vitol Holding II S.A., and Tinsel Group, S.A.) are foreign individuals/entities with no residence or headquarters in Texas.
- Loya alleged the defendants had communications/contracts with Texas residents and that information about a Vitol investment should have been disclosed in the divorce; she conceded none of the appellees resided in Texas or directly communicated with her or her counsel in Texas.
- Each Vitol appellee filed a special appearance asserting lack of personal jurisdiction; the trial court granted the special appearances and denied Loya’s motions for continuance.
- Defendants argued (1) Loya failed to plead jurisdictional facts as to Taylor and Sterken and they proved nonresidence, (2) none of the defendants are “at home” in Texas (no general jurisdiction), (3) alleged contacts are not substantially connected to the operative facts (no specific jurisdiction), and (4) Loya’s requested discovery was not essential or timely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Texas has personal jurisdiction over Taylor and Sterken | Loya alleged they "actively participated" in Texas businesses | Loya failed to plead act-in-Texas; Taylor and Sterken proved nonresidence so jurisdiction negated | Trial court properly granted special appearances for Taylor and Sterken (plaintiff’s pleading deficient) |
| Whether Texas courts have general jurisdiction over the foreign Vitol defendants | Contacts (visits, communications, contracts, Texas-based directors) show continuous/systematic contacts | Contacts are occasional, made in corporate capacity, and defendants are not "at home" in Texas; fiduciary-shield/agency contacts not attributable | No general jurisdiction; defendants not "at home" in Texas |
| Whether Texas has specific jurisdiction over the Vitol defendants for Loya’s claims | Alleged deposition, shareholder agreements, and contracts relate to the injuries felt in Texas | Contacts (London deposition, shareholder agreements, remote contracts) are not substantially connected to operative facts; forum-selection clauses point to Netherlands | No specific jurisdiction; contacts lack substantial connection to operative facts |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying continuance for jurisdictional discovery | Loya sought more discovery (RFPs, depositions) and argued it was essential | Discovery requests were late, overbroad, largely irrelevant to jurisdictional facts, and depositions were offered and taken | Denial of continuance not an abuse of discretion; plaintiff failed to show diligence or essentiality of requested discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (plaintiff bears initial pleading burden for jurisdictional facts; operative-facts connection required for specific jurisdiction)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (U.S. 2011) (general jurisdiction limited to fora where a defendant is essentially at home)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (U.S. 2014) (reiterating narrow scope of general jurisdiction; defendant’s affiliations must be so continuous and systematic as to render it at home)
- Guardian Royal Exch. Assur. v. English China Clays, 815 S.W.2d 223 (Tex. 1991) (Texas long-arm and minimum contacts analysis; specific and general jurisdiction distinctions)
- Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007) (specific jurisdiction requires substantial connection between forum contacts and operative facts)