Max Protetch, Inc. v. Herrin
340 S.W.3d 878
Tex. App.2011Background
- Herrin, a Texas resident, contracted to buy a Scott Burton table from Protetch, a New York corporation, with delivery FOB New York.
- Delivery occurred in Houston; Herrin alleged the table was nonconforming and Protetch misrepresented repair/refinishing options.
- Protetch asserted no Texas presence and that negotiations and the sale occurred in New York.
- Protetch’s president allegedly visited Houston, discussed repairs, and promised a conforming table; communications occurred between Protetch and Herrin.
- Herrin later sued Protetch for breach of contract and TEXAS Theft Liability Act violations; Protetch filed a verified special appearance and answer.
- Trial court denied Protetch’s special appearance, and Herrin then pursued an accelerated interlocutory appeal seeking to uphold jurisdiction over Protetch in Texas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Texas has specific jurisdiction over Protetch. | Protetch purposefully availed Texas via Texas contacts. | All negotiations occurred in New York; no Texas-based act justifies jurisdiction. | Yes; Texas has specific jurisdiction over Protetch. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007) (minimum contacts and purposeful availment framework)
- Horizon Shipbuilding, Inc. v. BLyn II Holding, LLC, 324 S.W.3d 840 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (specific jurisdiction analysis in context of forum connections)
- Guardian Royal Exch. Assur., Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.C, 815 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. 1991) (due process and long-arm reach)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment standard for minimum contacts)
- Michiana Easy Livin' Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. 2005) (touches on purposeful availment and relatedness in jurisdiction)
- BMC Software Belg., N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (burden-shifting and prima facie showing on jurisdiction)
- Guard., Glencoe Capital Partners II, L.P. v. Gernsbacher, 269 S.W.3d 157 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2008) (evidence-based connection between forum contacts and litigation core)
- Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. DeLanney, 809 S.W.2d 493 (Tex. 1991) (contract-based duty vs. tort distinctions for jurisdictional purposes)