Riverside Exports, Inc. v. B.R. Crane & Equipment, LLC
362 S.W.3d 649
Tex. App.2011Background
- Riverside Exports, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation with no Texas office, bank, property, employees, or Texas customers aside from B.R. Crane.
- B.R. Crane, a Texas LLC, contacted Riverside to purchase a crane, paid a $43,000 deposit, and owed $24,500 more.
- Riverside did not complete the sale; B.R. Crane sued Riverside in Texas for breach of contract, fraud, and DTPA violations.
- Riverside filed a special appearance, proving lack of Texas presence; Riverside argued no minimum contacts with Texas.
- Trial court denied the special appearance; Riverside appealed, arguing lack of minimum contacts under due-process standards.
- The court reversed and rendered a dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding Riverside had no minimum contacts with Texas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Riverside has minimum contacts with Texas | Crane argues Riverside purposefully availed itself via Texas activities. | Riverside asserts no Texas office, assets, employees, customers, or targeted marketing. | No minimum contacts; dismiss. |
| Whether Riverside's website constitutes sufficient contact for jurisdiction | Crane contends the website advertising suffices to assert jurisdiction. | Riverside's site is informational and not aimed at Texas specifically. | Website alone not sufficient for specific jurisdiction. |
| Whether email communications to Texas establish purposefully availing in Texas | Crane asserts emails directed at Texas to consummate a sale show purposefulness. | Emails, like phone calls, do not necessarily indicate the sender's location or availment. | Emails do not establish purposeful availment in Texas. |
Key Cases Cited
- Michiana Easy Livin' Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. 2005) (purposeful availment requires more than unilateral activity; rejects accidental contacts)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) (minimum-contacts test; forum state must satisfy due process)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (unilateral activity cannot establish contact with forum)
- BMC Software, Belg., N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (jurisdictional analysis framework; de novo review of facts)
- Jackson v. Hoffman, 312 S.W.3d 146 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (informational websites generally do not establish jurisdiction)
- Alenia Spazio, S.p.A. v. Reid, 130 S.W.3d 201 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2003) (email and other communications examined for purposefulness)