396 S.W.3d 57
Tex. App.2013Background
- Peters filed a New Jersey judgment for domestication in Texas under UEFJA; the trial court ordered vacating the New Jersey judgment.
- Top Gun contested filing and the trial court vacated the NJ judgment on grounds it lacked subject matter and personal jurisdiction.
- Peters argues the trial court abused its discretion and that the New Jersey judgment is presently enforceable as a Texas judgment.
- The contract between Peters and Top Gun involved locating employment opportunities, with a $4,500 retainer and a $5,000 contingent fee.
- Top Gun’s contacts with New Jersey included sending a form email to Peters, sending the contract to Peters in New Jersey, and accepting payment from a New Jersey billing address; Peters’s resume indicated a New Jersey nexus.
- The court held that Top Gun had minimum contacts with New Jersey and that enforcement of the NJ judgment in Texas was proper; the trial court’s vacatur was reversed and the NJ judgment was rendered enforceable in Texas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Top Gun proved lack of NJ personal jurisdiction | Peters argues the NJ court had jurisdiction | Top Gun contends no minimum contacts were proven | Peters’s first issue sustained; NJ had minimum contacts. |
| Whether NJ exercise of jurisdiction offended due process | Peters argues due process not offended by NJ jurisdiction | Top Gun argues due process was satisfied | Peters’s second issue sustained; NJ jurisdiction did not offend due process. |
| Whether the trial court erred vacating the NJ judgment | Peters contends vacatur was improper | Top Gun contends vacatur valid | Conclusion that trial court erred; reversed and rendered NJ judgment enforceable in Texas. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heller & Co. v. La.-Pac. Corp., 209 S.W.3d 844 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (full faith and credit; enforcement of foreign judgments)
- BMC Software Belg., N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 795 (Tex. 2002) (precedes on personal jurisdiction and long-arm precedent)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (minimum contacts for specific jurisdiction; long-term relationship significance)
- Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. 2005) (contract-based analysis of minimum contacts; long-term relationships)
- McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220 (U.S. 1957) (recognizing long-term relationship as basis for jurisdiction)