San Pedro Impulsora De Inmuebles Especiales, S.A. De C v. v. Villarreal
2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 9174
| Tex. App. | 2010Background
- Doña Raquel Cantu de Villarreal was an elderly ward whose guardianship and estate led to multiple prior Texas proceedings.
- Seven adult children, including Raquel Villarreal and Marcelo Villarreal, sued several defendants over alleged misappropriation of Doña Raquel's assets, including $2.7 million deposited with San Pedro Impulsora via Lone Star Bank in Brownsville.
- Plaintiffs asserted San Pedro Impulsora, a Mexican corporation, was used as a shell to hold Doña Raquel's Texas property and to facilitate fraudulent transfers.
- San Pedro Impulsora moved for a special appearance arguing it has no Texas presence beyond a Lone Star Bank account and Mexican-law governance; plaintiffs offered evidence of a alleged fraudulent transfer and Texas assets.
- The trial court held a hearing on the special appearance, admitted and excluded various exhibits, and denied the special appearance, finding minimum contacts with Texas; San Pedro Impulsora appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed, upholding jurisdiction based on minimum contacts and finding no due-process violation in maintaining Texas jurisdiction over San Pedro Impulsora.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Texas court has minimum contacts with San Pedro Impulsora | Villarreal arguments assert San Pedro Impulsora engaged in fraud involving Texas assets. | San Pedro Impulsora contends it has no meaningful Texas presence beyond a bank account. | Yes, minimum contacts established for specific jurisdiction. |
| Whether the minimum contacts comply with fair play and substantial justice | Plaintiffs argue Texas interest in safeguarding a ward's assets supports jurisdiction. | San Pedro Impulsora claims Texas is an improper forum due to burden and lack of ties. | Jurisdiction does not offend fair play; exercise is reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- BMC Software Belg., N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (long-arm scope extends to due-process limits)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. Supreme Court 1945) (establishes minimum contacts and fair play standard)
- Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007) (purposeful availment and three-part minimum contacts test)
- Michiana Easy Livin' Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. 2005) (limits on consideration of forum contacts and focus on purposeful availment)
- Asahi Metal Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (U.S. Supreme Court 1987) (fair play and substantial justice factors guide jurisdictional analysis)
- Guardian Royal Exch. Assurance, Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.C., 815 S.W.2d 223 (Tex. 1991) (multifactor fair-play analysis for jurisdiction)