the Knight Corporation v. Susana Nery Knight
367 S.W.3d 715
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Knight Corp. formed in Pennsylvania; Susana Knight filed Texas divorce proceedings alleging alter-ego theories between Knight Corp., Knight Filter, and Grasslyn, L.L.C.
- Susana amended pleadings to add Knight Corp. as a party and alleged fraudulent acts to deprive her of community assets.
- Knight Corp. filed a special appearance arguing no Texas residency or purposeful Texas contacts; asserted structure to shield from Texas jurisdiction.
- Trial court denied the special appearance on August 12, 2011 finding jurisdiction based on alleged systemic and continuous Texas business.
- Knight Corp. appealed and sought mandamus relief; the court consolidated the appeal and mandamus and dismissed the appeal while conditionally granting the writ.
- The court ultimately held Knight Corp. lacked continuous and systematic contacts with Texas and rejected imputing Knight Filter’s contacts to Knight Corp.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is specific jurisdiction over Knight Corp. | Susana; Knight Corp. has purposeful Texas contacts. | Knight Corp. has no Texas activities related to the suit. | No specific jurisdiction. |
| Whether general jurisdiction exists over Knight Corp. | Knight Corp. maintains continuous Texas presence via subsidiary and activities. | Contacts are through Knight Filter; no home state in Texas. | No general jurisdiction. |
| Whether Knight Corp. can be treated as alter ego of Knight Filter for jurisdiction | Control and overlap justify imputing Knight Filter’s contacts to Knight Corp. | Insufficient control; separate entities maintained; veil not pierced for jurisdiction. | Alter-ego theory insufficient; cannot impute for purposes of jurisdiction. |
| Whether Knight Corp. waived its special appearance | Geoff’s motion to quash served as a step toward contesting jurisdiction. | Motion to quash was procedural and not a general appearance by Knight Corp.; no waiver. | No waiver of special appearance. |
| What is the proper standard of review for the jurisdictional ruling | De novo review on legal/jurisdictional questions. | Standard of review not contested; governed by law. | De novo review applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007) (minimum contacts and burden shifting in jurisdictional analysis)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (minimum contacts and purposeful availment standards)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) (due process limits on in-forum jurisdiction)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (purposeful availment and fair play in jurisdiction)
- Guardian Royal Exch. Assur., Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.C., 815 S.W.2d 223 (Tex. 1991) (test for general and specific jurisdiction; continuous and systematic contacts)
- BMC Software Belg., N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (de novo review; implied findings if trial court does not sign findings)
- Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. 2005) (purposeful availment framework; factors for minimum contacts)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations v. Brown, 131 S.Ct. 2846 (2011) (general jurisdiction requires at-home, continuous and systematic contacts)
- Conner v. ContiCarriers & Terminals, Inc., 944 S.W.2d 405 (Tex. 1997) (veil-piercing and control thresholds for jurisdiction)