Retire Happy, LLC v. Karen Tanner, Individually and in Her Capacity as of the Estate of Edwin Albert Tanner
07-16-00134-CV
| Tex. App. | Jan 27, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Karen Tanner (individually and as executor) sued Nevada LLC Retire Happy in Oldham County, Texas, alleging fiduciary and other tort and securities claims based on investments solicited for a Nevada entity (Horizon Group).
- Retire Happy filed a special appearance asserting lack of personal jurisdiction; it submitted an affidavit denying any Texas office, employees, property, tax payments, or business trips and stating only that ~22 of 600 clients resided or resided in Texas.
- Tanner submitted an affidavit and discovery responses asserting communications by email, phone, website and wire transfers with Retire Happy while she and her husband were in Texas; she alleged the cause of action arose from those contacts.
- The trial court denied the special appearance; no live evidence was offered at the hearing, only counsel argument and the previously-filed affidavits and documents (some unauthenticated).
- The appellate court reviewed jurisdiction de novo, focusing on minimum contacts, purposeful availment, nexus for specific jurisdiction, and the higher threshold for general jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Texas has specific personal jurisdiction over Retire Happy | Tanner: Retire Happy purposefully availed itself via emails, telephone, an interactive website, a toll-free number, and 22 Texas clients, and the claims arise from those contacts | Retire Happy: No purposeful availment or nexus — no Texas office, agents, property, tax payments, or targeted marketing; contacts were fortuitous and remote | No specific jurisdiction: contacts (emails, calls, website, 22 of 600 clients) insufficient to show purposeful direction or nexus to Texas claims |
| Whether Texas has general personal jurisdiction over Retire Happy | Tanner: the presence of Texas clients and ongoing services suffice to show continuous and systematic contacts | Retire Happy: lacks continuous/systematic contacts — no offices, employees, property, or sustained business in Texas | No general jurisdiction: contacts not continuous/systematic to render defendant "at home" in Texas |
| Admissibility/weight of proffered evidence at special appearance hearing | Tanner: her affidavits, discovery responses and documents establish contacts | Retire Happy: its affidavit and documentary evidence refute jurisdictional contacts | Court: unsworn argument at hearing is not evidence; the record was sparse and many documents unauthenticated, so plaintiff failed to meet burden |
| Legal standard for website/online contacts in jurisdictional analysis | Tanner: interactive website and online communications show purposeful availment | Retire Happy: website accessibility alone is insufficient; must show targeting/intent to serve Texas market | Court: website interactivity alone does not prove purposeful direction to Texas; additional targeting conduct required |
Key Cases Cited
- Cornerstone Healthcare Grp. Holding, Inc. v. Nautic Mgmt. VI, L.P., 493 S.W.3d 65 (Tex. 2016) (frames Texas test for minimum contacts, purposeful availment, and general vs specific jurisdiction)
- TV Azteca v. Ruiz, 490 S.W.3d 29 (Tex. 2016) (requires defendant's contacts be purposefully directed to forum and nexus between contacts and claim)
- Kelly v. General Interior Construction, Inc., 301 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. 2010) (addresses burdens in special-appearance proceedings)
- Michiana Easy Livin' Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. 2005) (telephone calls and similar communications insufficient alone to show purposeful availment)
- Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007) (marketing efforts directed to Texas may support jurisdiction; internet presence requires additional targeting conduct)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (for specific jurisdiction, focus on defendant's contacts with the forum, not plaintiff's connections)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) (contacts like negotiations, purchases, and training in forum may still be insufficient for general jurisdiction)
- PHC-Minden, L.P. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 235 S.W.3d 163 (Tex. 2007) (general jurisdiction requires substantially higher continuous and systematic contacts)
- Gardemal v. Westin Hotel Co., 186 F.3d 588 (5th Cir. 1999) (absence of evidence about extent of forum business undermines jurisdictional claims)