the University of Alabama v. the Suder Foundation, 05-16-00691-CV

Background

The Suder Foundation (Texas nonprofit) runs a national First Scholars Program that awards funds to participating universities; the University of Alabama (UA) was an affiliate campus where program activities and scholarship recipients were based in Alabama.
The Foundation solicited proposals nationally; UA applied from Alabama and entered into six agreements (2010–2014) to implement the Program at UA’s Alabama campus; none of the agreements were negotiated in Texas or required performance in Texas.
UA and the Foundation communicated by email and phone over five years; UA transmitted program data to the Foundation (in Texas) and UA representatives made seven voluntary trips to Texas for group meetings, training, fundraising, and stewardship.
The Foundation provided approximately $1,000,000 in funding for UA scholarships and program infrastructure but most performance and spending occurred in Alabama.
UA withdrew from the Program in September 2015; the Foundation sued in Texas state court for breach of contract and related claims, asserting specific personal jurisdiction over UA under Texas’s long-arm statute.
The trial court denied UA’s special appearance; UA appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed and rendered dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Texas courts have specific jurisdiction over UA	Foundation: UA’s emails, calls, data transmissions to Texas, trips to Texas, and the contracts with a Texas plaintiff show purposeful availment and relatedness	UA: Communications and travel were incidental; performance and contract-centered activities occurred in Alabama, so UA lacked minimum contacts with Texas	No specific jurisdiction. UA’s contacts with Texas did not constitute purposeful availment and the claims were not related to forum contacts
Whether contracting with a Texas resident alone supports jurisdiction	Foundation: Contracting and continuing relationship (and $1M funding) tether UA to Texas	UA: Contract resulted from a nationwide RFP; agreements centered on performance in Alabama, not Texas	Contracting alone insufficient; significance depends on negotiations, terms, contemplated consequences, and course of dealing; here centered outside Texas
Whether communications and data transmissions to Texas establish minimum contacts	Foundation: Repeated emails, phone calls, and data transfers create substantial contacts	UA: Communications relate to performance in Alabama; transmission location is fortuitous and insufficient for jurisdiction	Communications/data transmissions are insufficient to establish purposeful availment
Whether UA’s travel to Texas for Program meetings supports jurisdiction	Foundation: UA’s seven trips show forum-directed activities	UA: Travel was not required by contract and Foundation chose Texas as meeting site; performance obligations were Alabama-based	Voluntary, non-contractual travel to Texas is insufficient to confer specific jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

Kelly v. Gen. Interior Constr., Inc., 301 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. 2010) (standard of review for special appearance)
Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007) (Texas long-arm scope and plaintiff burden)
Am. Type Culture Collection, Inc. v. Coleman, 83 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. 2002) (factual disputes and jurisdictional inquiry)
Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. 2005) (purposeful availment analysis)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (contract contacts analyzed by prior negotiations, contemplated consequences, contract terms, and course of dealing)
World–Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980) (anticipation of being haled into forum courts)
TV Azteca v. Ruiz, 490 S.W.3d 29 (Tex. 2016) (relatedness requirement for specific jurisdiction)
Moncrief Oil Int’l Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, 414 S.W.3d 142 (Tex. 2013) (specific jurisdiction requires connection between contacts and operative facts)