My Vacation Europe, Inc. v. Connie Sigel, 05-14-00435-CV

Sigel, a Texas resident, booked and paid online through My Vacation Europe, Inc. (MVE) for a seven-night Paris rental after exchanging emails and using MVE’s website/reservation page.
While Sigel was in the Margaux apartment in Paris, someone used a key to enter and stole most of her possessions from the apartment and safe.
Sigel submitted a French police report to MVE and sought reimbursement; MVE denied responsibility and identified a French corporation (Westates SCI) as the apartment owner.
Sigel sued MVE and Westates in Texas county court for multiple tort and contract claims and pleaded theories including joint enterprise and alter ego.
MVE filed a special appearance claiming lack of personal jurisdiction and moved to dismiss based on a forum-selection clause; the trial court denied MVE’s special appearance.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding Texas courts lacked both specific and general jurisdiction over MVE and rendered judgment dismissing claims against MVE for want of personal jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Texas courts have specific jurisdiction over MVE	Sigel: MVE purposefully availed itself by receiving rental revenue from a Texas resident, making representations via its website, and entering a contract with Sigel in Dallas	MVE: Sale/contract with a Texas resident and website contacts are insufficient; MVE did not target Texas or perform contract in Texas	No specific jurisdiction — contacts too attenuated; operative events (theft in Paris) not related to Texas contacts
Whether Texas courts have general jurisdiction over MVE	Sigel: MVE conducts business in Texas via a "highly interactive" website and repeated online contacts, marketing to Texas residents	MVE: No continuous/systematic contacts — no offices, employees, bank accounts, property, targeted marketing, or substantial Texas operations	No general jurisdiction — website/interactions insufficient and contacts not continuous and systematic

Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (established minimum-contacts/due-process framework for personal jurisdiction)
Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (purposeful availment principle)
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (specific vs. general jurisdiction analysis)
Guardian Royal Exch. Assurance, Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.C., 815 S.W.2d 223 (Tex. 1991) (Texas long-arm construed to reach constitutional limits)
BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (general jurisdiction and continuous/systematic contacts standard)
Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. 2005) (single sale to Texas resident does not generally confer jurisdiction)
Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007) (marketing contacts may suffice but operative facts must relate to forum contacts)
Am. Type Culture Collection, Inc. v. Coleman, 83 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. 2002) (special appearance reviewed de novo; trial court fact findings assumed in favor of judgment)