617 S.W.3d 116
Tex. App.2020Background
- Plaintiff William Hartley, a Louisiana welder, was injured on the M/V PetroSaudi Saturn (anchored off Trinidad) and sued under the Jones Act, naming PetroSaudi Oil Services Ltd. among others.
- PetroSaudi filed a special appearance asserting it is a Cayman Islands corporation with principal place of business in London and lacks sufficient contacts with Texas.
- Hartley alleged PetroSaudi did business from a Houston address (North Sam Houston Parkway) and relied on evidence including invoices, travel documents, employee email signature blocks/LinkedIn profiles, and internal emails referencing a Houston “office” and “management team.”
- Depositions and affidavits (Myers, PetroSaudi president; Procurement Services employees; Aguero) produced conflicting evidence about corporate structure, whether PetroSaudi or its Houston subsidiary (Procurement Services) maintained the Houston office, and whether some employment paperwork used PetroSaudi’s name by mistake.
- The trial court denied PetroSaudi’s special appearance; PetroSaudi appealed challenging waiver, sufficiency of jurisdictional contacts, and the trial court’s implied alter-ego finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of special appearance | PetroSaudi delayed seeking a ruling and therefore waived the special appearance. | Filing and amending the special appearance and having it be the first matter heard preserved the procedural rights; no rule requires a ruling within a set time. | No waiver — special appearance was first pleading heard; delay alone did not waive the challenge. |
| Existence of a PetroSaudi office / minimum contacts in Texas | Hartley: documents (invoices, travel bookings, email blocks, corporate communications) show PetroSaudi maintained a Houston office and conducted core business there. | PetroSaudi: sworn testimony says it has no TX office, is Cayman-incorporated, London-based, and Houston operations belonged to Procurement Services. | The trial court reasonably implied PetroSaudi had a Houston office; conflicting evidence supports that finding. |
| General jurisdiction ("at home" in Texas) | Hartley: Houston office and integral activities (crewing, procurement, travel, certifications) render PetroSaudi essentially at home in Texas. | PetroSaudi: incorporated in Cayman, principal place London, limited TX activities (occasional training) insufficient for general jurisdiction. | Held that PetroSaudi’s Houston operations were integral to its business and sufficient to support general jurisdiction. |
| Fair play & substantial justice / alter-ego claim | Hartley: litigating in Texas is reasonable; Procurement Services’ contacts can be imputed if alter-ego. | PetroSaudi: litigation in Texas is burdensome; Procurement Services is a separate subsidiary so its contacts shouldn’t be imputed. | Court found exercise of jurisdiction reasonable under due-process factors and did not need to decide alter-ego because direct contacts sufficed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Old Republic Nat’l Title Ins. Co. v. Bell, 549 S.W.3d 550 (Tex. 2018) (standards for reviewing personal-jurisdiction determinations)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (general jurisdiction: corporation is "at home" only in paradigmatic forums except in exceptional cases)
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum-contacts/modern due-process framework)
- BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017) (explaining exceptional-case doctrine for general jurisdiction)
- Moncrief Oil Int’l, Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, 414 S.W.3d 142 (Tex. 2013) (purposeful availment and due-process contacts analysis)
- Retamco Operating, Inc. v. Republic Drilling Co., 278 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. 2009) (purposeful availment test)
- BMC Software Belg., N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (Texas long-arm "does business" standard and appellate review principles)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (general-jurisdiction background and "continuous and systematic" contacts)
- Cornerstone Healthcare Grp. Hldg., Inc. v. Nautic Mgmt. VI, L.P., 493 S.W.3d 65 (Tex. 2016) (factors for fair play and substantial justice analysis)
- Kelly v. Gen. Interior Constr., Inc., 301 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. 2010) (shifting burdens in jurisdictional proof and defendant’s methods to negate jurisdiction)