Michael Simmons v. Boyd Gaming Corporation and Delta Downs Racetrack Casino and Hotel, 09-16-00470-CV

Collision in Jefferson County, Texas: Horton (Louisiana) drove from Delta Downs Racetrack Casino & Hotel (operated by Boyd Racing LLC; parent Boyd Gaming) and struck Simmons, causing injuries; Horton had consumed alcohol at Delta Downs in Louisiana.
Simmons sued Horton, Boyd Gaming, and Delta Downs in Texas claiming negligence under the Texas Dram Shop Act (alleging employees served Horton while he was obviously intoxicated).
Boyd Gaming (Nevada corp.; principal place Las Vegas) and Delta Downs (Louisiana LLC; principal place Vinton) filed a joint special appearance denying Texas residency and contesting jurisdiction, attaching Mitnik’s unsworn declaration that they lacked offices, agents, property, or purposeful Texas-directed acts relevant to the suit.
Plaintiff submitted discovery materials and Horton affidavits showing he received Boyd/Delta marketing and was a B Connected member who was enticed to visit Delta Downs; plaintiff did not introduce the specific promotional emails or advertisements at issue.
Evidence showed Delta Downs purchased goods/services from Texas vendors and spent millions advertising in Southeast Texas, but no evidence showed promotions promised complimentary alcohol or that the alleged service occurred in Texas; trial court granted the special appearance and dismissed Boyd and Delta Downs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Specific jurisdiction: whether Texas courts may exercise jurisdiction based on marketing/contacts with Texas (Dram Shop Act claim)	Simmons: Boyd/Delta purposefully directed marketing to Texas (including Horton), so the Dram Shop claim substantially relates to those contacts	Boyd/Delta: marketing and remote contacts do not establish purposeful availment or a substantial connection to the alleged tort (serving alcohol occurred in Louisiana)	Court: No specific jurisdiction — plaintiff failed to show a substantial connection between Texas-directed contacts and the operative facts of the Dram Shop claim
General jurisdiction: whether contacts with Texas are continuous/systematic enough to render corporations "at home" in Texas	Simmons: Significant advertising and vendor/business volume in Texas demonstrate continuous, systematic contacts supporting general jurisdiction	Boyd/Delta: Incorporated/principal place of business out of state; contacts (advertising/vendor purchases) insufficient to render them at home in Texas	Court: No general jurisdiction — contacts not so continuous/systematic to make defendants at home in Texas; Daimler governs

BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (standards for special appearance and long-arm statute analysis)
Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007) (substantial-connection test; but-for causation insufficient)
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (U.S. 2014) (general jurisdiction — corporation at home only in place of incorporation or principal place of business absent exceptional circumstances)
Kelly v. Gen. Interior Constr., Inc., 301 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. 2010) (shifting burdens in special appearance hearings)
Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. 2005) (in-state advertising alone generally insufficient for jurisdiction over out-of-state torts)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (contacts must relate to the cause of action; forum contacts by contract may be insufficient when unrelated)
Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1958) (unilateral activity of third parties cannot establish defendant forum contacts)
Retamco Operating, Inc. v. Republic Drilling Co., 278 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. 2009) (implied findings appropriate where supported by record)
Triplex Commc’ns v. Riley, 900 S.W.2d 716 (Tex. 1995) (distinguishing negligent-promotion claims from other tort theories)