RSM Production Corp. and Jack Grynberg v. Global Petroleum Group, Ltd.
507 S.W.3d 383
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- RSM (Texas-registered, principal place in Colorado) and its founder Grynberg allege Global (Grenadian LLC) misappropriated proprietary 2D seismic data Grynberg gathered about Grenada and used it to pursue offshore development.
- Global obtained an exploration license from the Grenadian government in 2008 and says it received vintage 2D seismic data (including some RSM lines) from Grenada, then contracted with Tricon to process the data in Grenada/Venezuela; Tricon later subcontracted parts to Houston-based INEXS.
- RSM sued Global, Tricon, Blackwater, and SeaBird in Texas for trade-secret misappropriation and related claims; Global filed a special appearance asserting lack of Texas personal jurisdiction and the trial court granted it.
- RSM argued Texas has specific jurisdiction because Global sent data that ended up in Houston, contracted with several Texas-connected entities, sent representatives to Houston multiple times, and communicated with Texas companies about the project.
- Global produced evidence that it provided raw data to Tricon in Grenada/Venezuela, that any presence of the disputed paper data in Houston resulted from Tricon/INEXS actions, and that Global did not direct tortious acts toward Texas or provide RSM data directly to other Texas contractors.
- The trial court dismissed RSM’s claims against Global for lack of personal jurisdiction; the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding RSM failed to show a substantial connection between Global’s Texas contacts and the trade-secret claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Texas has specific personal jurisdiction over Global for RSM’s trade-secret claim | Global routed, disclosed, or caused use of RSM’s seismic data in Texas (via Tricon/INEXS, meetings, emails, contracts) so the claim arises from Texas contacts | Global’s relevant acts (obtaining and using data) occurred in Grenada/Venezuela; any presence in Texas was due to third parties (Tricon/INEXS) and thus fortuitous | No specific jurisdiction; plaintiff failed to show defendant’s Texas contacts substantially connected to the claim |
| Whether Global’s dealings with Tricon/INEXS create purposeful availment of Texas | Tricon/INEXS processed and used the data in Houston, so Global purposefully availed itself of Texas by facilitating that use | Global provided data to Tricon in Grenada/Venezuela; Tricon unilaterally subcontracted INEXS and decisions to send data to Houston were Tricon’s actions | Contacts tied to Tricon/INEXS were insufficient; Global did not purposefully avail itself of Texas for the misappropriation claim |
| Whether contracts with Texas-related entities (choice-of-law, indemnity, jurisdiction clauses) support jurisdiction | Contract provisions and repeated dealings with Texas entities show purposeful invocation of Texas law and forum | Those contract provisions concern discrete contracts unrelated to RSM’s claim; choice-of-law alone is insufficient to confer jurisdiction | Contract provisions unrelated to the misappropriation claim do not support specific jurisdiction |
| Whether Global’s trips/meetings in Houston established jurisdiction | Global representatives attended meetings in Houston where project reports (incorporating RSM data) were discussed | Meetings involved project development generally; there is no evidence trade secrets were exchanged or that Global used RSM’s data in Texas | Meetings were not shown to involve the exchange/use of RSM trade secrets; insufficient to establish jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelly v. Gen. Interior Constr., Inc., 301 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. 2010) (shifting burdens in a special appearance and plaintiff’s burden to plead and present jurisdictional facts)
- Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007) (specific-jurisdiction requires substantial connection between forum contacts and the litigation)
- BMC Software Belg., N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (trial court may resolve factual disputes and implied findings support special-appearance rulings)
- Moncrief Oil Int’l Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, 414 S.W.3d 142 (Tex. 2013) (personal jurisdiction analysis and due-process limits)
- Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. 2005) (only defendant’s contacts are relevant; no jurisdiction based on unilateral acts of third parties)
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (minimum contacts and due-process framework for personal jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (choice-of-law and contract provisions are relevant but not alone dispositive for jurisdiction)
- Cornerstone Healthcare Grp. Holding, Inc. v. Nautic Mgmt. VI, L.P., 493 S.W.3d 65 (Tex. 2016) (jurisdiction supported where defendants’ Texas-directed transactions were the crux of the challenged conduct)