TV Azteca, S.A.B. de C.V. v. Ruiz
494 S.W.3d 109
Tex. App.2014Background
- Plaintiffs Gloria Trevi and Armando Gomez sued TV Azteca, producer/host Patricia (Pati) Chapoy, and regional broadcaster Publimax (the Media Defendants) for defamation and related torts based on television broadcasts (Ventaneando) that plaintiffs viewed in Texas. Plaintiffs live/claim injuries in McAllen, Texas.
- Defendants are Mexican entities/individuals; they filed special appearances arguing lack of Texas personal jurisdiction (both specific and general) and objected to certain plaintiff evidence.
- Evidence before the trial court included: (1) admissions/affidavits that Azteca programming (Ventaneando) is produced in Mexico; (2) a Publimax/‘Azteca Noreste’ map and testimony showing viewership in South Texas; (3) corporate materials and a press release showing Azteca America/AIC licenses and promotion of Ventaneando in the U.S.; (4) deposition testimony from Trevi and Gomez that they saw the broadcasts in Texas.
- Defendants argued any Texas reception was accidental "spillover," that they did not target Texas, and that production/editorial work was done in Mexico; Chapoy asserted she did not purposefully avail herself of Texas jurisdiction.
- The trial court denied the special appearances. On interlocutory appeal, the court of appeals affirmed, finding sufficient minimum contacts for specific jurisdiction and that Texas jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial justice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Special appearance / Personal jurisdiction (overall) | Trevi: defendants purposefully directed broadcasts to Texas and caused injury there | Defendants: nonresidents, lacked minimum contacts; broadcasts were incidental/spillover | Affirmed — special appearances denied; personal jurisdiction exists |
| Specific jurisdiction (defamation broadcast) | Ventaneando was regularly viewed in South Texas; defendants directed programming to U.S. Spanish‑speaking market | Defendants: any Texas reception was fortuitous or uncontrolled; production occurred in Mexico | Held: minimum contacts satisfied (purposeful direction/exploitation of Texas market); specific jurisdiction proper |
| General jurisdiction | N/A (plaintiffs relied on specific jurisdiction) | Defendants: contacts not continuous/systematic to support general jurisdiction | Court did not need to decide general jurisdiction (specific jurisdiction dispositive) |
| Evidentiary objections to plaintiff proofs | Plaintiffs relied on deposition excerpts, a 2012 coverage map, press releases, and affidavits to show targeting and U.S. distribution | Defendants: offered hearsay/untimely evidence; map post‑dates filing; many exhibits improper | Overruled/harmless as to challenged items the court relied on; map and promotional materials were considered for specific‑jurisdiction analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- BMC Software Belgium v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (burden shifting and standard for special appearance)
- Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007) (defendant bears burden to negate pleaded jurisdictional bases)
- Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (U.S. 1984) (regular circulation in forum supports libel jurisdiction)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (U.S. 1984) (effects test: intentional tortious conduct aimed at forum supports jurisdiction)
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (minimum contacts and due process standard)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (purposeful availment analysis)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1984) (distinguishing specific vs general jurisdiction)