Scotty Moring v. Inspectorate America Corporation, 529 S.W.3d 145

Moring, a Louisiana resident, worked for Inspectorate (after it bought Waterdraws) and signed a broad confidentiality/invention-assignment agreement restricting use/removal of Inspectorate’s confidential information.
From 2012–2014 Moring was based in Houston and performed bids, quotes, and physical services (waterdraw calibrations, pipe-prover inspections/rebuilds) for Texas customers; he later returned to Louisiana.
In December 2015 Moring and several colleagues left Inspectorate to work for competitor Intertek; Inspectorate alleges Moring took customer lists and base pricing and used them to solicit and perform work for the same Texas customers while at Intertek.
Inspectorate sued Moring (among others) for breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets/confidential information, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, and unfair competition.
Moring filed a special appearance claiming lack of personal jurisdiction in Texas; the trial court initially granted the special appearance, later reconsidered, granted rehearing, and denied Moring’s special appearance.
The court of appeals affirms, holding Inspectorate did not waive reconsideration and Texas has specific jurisdiction over Moring based on his purposeful contacts with Texas that substantially relate to the operative facts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Inspectorate waived right to seek reconsideration of the trial court’s grant of Moring’s special appearance	Inspectorate may challenge the order by requesting reconsideration while the trial court retains plenary power	Moring argues Inspectorate waived appellate review by not immediately taking an interlocutory appeal	No waiver; trial court retained plenary power and could reconsider; Inspectorate did not waive request for rehearing
Whether Texas courts have personal jurisdiction over Moring	Moring purposefully availed himself of Texas by soliciting Texas customers, generating bids, and performing services in Texas using alleged confidential information; claims arise from those contacts	Moring contends he is a Louisiana resident, did not commit the alleged torts in Texas, and his Texas contacts were only as an employee and therefore insufficient for jurisdiction	Specific jurisdiction exists: Moring had minimum contacts (solicitation, bids, in‑person services in Texas) substantially connected to the claims; jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial justice

DeWolf v. Kohler, 452 S.W.3d 373 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (no waiver of appellate review for special-appearance rulings under court’s precedent)
Fruehauf Corp. v. Carrillo, 848 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. 1993) (trial court retains plenary power to reconsider interlocutory orders)
Lehman v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (interlocutory orders remain subject to trial court plenary power)
BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (standard of review and due-process framework for personal jurisdiction)
Moncrief Oil Int’l, Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, 414 S.W.3d 142 (Tex. 2013) (plaintiff’s pleading burden under long-arm statute; then defendant must negate jurisdictional bases)
Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007) (specific-jurisdiction requires purposeful contacts and substantial connection between contacts and operative facts)
Cornerstone Healthcare Grp. Holding, Inc. v. Nautic Mgmt. VI, L.P., 493 S.W.3d 65 (Tex. 2016) (do not decide merits at jurisdictional stage)
Retamco Operating, Inc. v. Republic Drilling Co., 278 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. 2009) (focus on quality and nature of contacts in minimum-contacts analysis)
Spir Star AG v. Kimich, 310 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2010) (factors for reasonableness/fair play and substantial justice)
Guardian Royal Exch. Assr., Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.C., 815 S.W.2d 223 (Tex. 1991) (rare cases where jurisdiction might still be unreasonable despite minimum contacts)