524 S.W.3d 746
Tex. App.2017Background
- Richard Nawraeaj, an Illinois-licensed attorney, represented PeopleStrategy and Genesys in litigation filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas). He sought and obtained pro hac vice admission and handled most of the work.
- Nawraeaj recruited and supervised Texas local counsel (the Travis firm), negotiated their rates, communicated frequently with them, and billed Genesys for work including locating local counsel.
- Genesys alleged the Travis firm overbilled and that Nawraeaj advised Genesys not to pay and promised to "take care of it," but failed to do so; Genesys relied on that advice.
- The Travis firm sued Genesys in Texas state court for unpaid fees; Genesys counterclaimed and later third‑partied Nawraeaj for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and related claims arising from his representation in the Texas litigation.
- Nawraeaj filed a special appearance arguing lack of personal jurisdiction and pointing to an Illinois arbitration clause in his engagement agreement; the trial court denied the special appearance and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Texas long‑arm statute applies | Genesys: Nawraeaj committed a tort in Texas (supervising local counsel, misrepresentations), satisfying the "commits a tort in whole or in part in this state" provision | Nawraeaj: Allegations of tort in Texas are legally insufficient to invoke the long‑arm statute | Long‑arm statute satisfied: pleading that tort was committed in Texas met plaintiff's minimal burden; defendant failed to negate basis for jurisdiction |
| Whether due process (minimum contacts) is met | Genesys: Nawraeaj purposefully availed himself by pro hac vice admission, filing and drafting pleadings, supervising Texas counsel, billing for work—contacts relate to claims | Nawraeaj: Contacts (remote work, use of local counsel, no physical presence) insufficient for purposeful availment | Minimum contacts met: pro hac vice admission, substantial role (90% of work), supervision and recruitment of Texas counsel created a substantial connection to Texas |
| Whether fair play and substantial justice preclude jurisdiction | Genesys: Texas has strong interest (discipline, malpractice arising from Texas litigation); efficient to litigate here where underlying matter and local counsel are located | Nawraeaj: Illinois arbitration clause and lack of physical presence show he didn’t expect Texas jurisdiction; forum clause should control | Fair play satisfied: forum‑selection clause does not negate minimum contacts; defendant did not show a compelling case that jurisdiction would be unreasonable; Texas interests and efficiency support jurisdiction |
| Overall procedural question — denial of special appearance | Genesys: Trial court properly denied special appearance based on evidence and jurisdictional discovery | Nawraeaj: Trial court erred — should have dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction | Court affirmed denial and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Moncrief Oil Int’l, Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, 414 S.W.3d 142 (Tex. 2013) (allegations a tort occurred in Texas satisfy the long‑arm statute but due process still must be addressed)
- Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. 2005) (forum‑selection clauses do not conclusively show absence of minimum contacts)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (purposeful availment and fairness factors for due process analysis)
- World‑Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980) (contacts must not be random, fortuitous, or attenuated)
- BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (burden shifting and review standards in special‑appearance context)