Michael Dodd and 3D Global Solutions, Inc. v. Brian J. Savino
426 S.W.3d 275
Tex. App.2014Background
- Dodd offered a $10 million investment in 3D Global; Savino and Augusta considered investing and requested earnest money.
- Dodd and 3D Global engaged in months of Texas-based discussions, including employment and salary terms for Savino and Ernst & Young due diligence.
- Ernst & Young concluded 3D Global's net present value did not support representations; due diligence revealed commingling of funds and inadequate capitalization.
- Savino requested refunds of the earnest money and other promised reimbursements; Dodd did not return funds.
- Savino filed suit in Texas for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and money had and received; default judgment entered after no responsive pleading.
- Court denied special appearance for lack of jurisdiction, denied Craddock motion for new trial, and affirmed damages and attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alter ego liability supported? | Savino alleged Dodd used 3D Global for personal benefit. | Dodd contends pleadings fail to allege actual fraud and alter ego properly. | Pleadings adequate; alter ego liability upheld. |
| Craddock motion for new trial proper denial? | Savino argues no intentional delay; excuse inadequate to show accident/mistake. | Faraj’s claimed hacking delay and busy schedule justify delay, but not enough. | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed. |
| Personal jurisdiction via special appearance valid? | Appellants had minimum contacts and purposeful availment in Texas. | Contacts with Texas were insufficient to justify jurisdiction. | Specific jurisdiction proper; special appearance denied. |
| Evidence supports unliquidated damages and fees? | Affidavits show reasonableness and amounts for contract damages and fees. | No formal hearing transcript; affidavits may be insufficient. | Evidence legally sufficient; damages and fees awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- CSR Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591 (Tex. 1996) (personal jurisdiction framework; long-arm authority)
- BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (minimum contacts and due process standards; de novo review)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (minimum contacts and due process basics)
- Michiana Easy Livin' Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. 2005) (purposeful availment; forum connection)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (purposeful availment; significance of negotiations and consequences)
- Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007) (specific vs general jurisdiction; term limits)
- Castleberry v. Branscum, 721 S.W.2d 270 (Tex. 1986) (alter ego; unity of ownership and control; fraud context)
- Dolgencorp of Tex., Inc. v. Lerma, 288 S.W.3d 922 (Tex. 2009) (default judgment review; Craddock factors)
- Morgan v. Compugraphic Corp., 675 S.W.2d 729 (Tex. 1984) (default judgment liability established by petition)
- Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp. v. Auld, 34 S.W.3d 887 (Tex. 2000) (liberal pleading standard; notice sufficiency)
- Levine v. Shackelford, Melton & McKinley, L.L.P., 248 S.W.3d 166 (Tex. 2008) (pattern of ignoring deadlines; conscious indifference)
- In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 2006) (default judgment context; excuse strength)