629 S.W.3d 742
Tex. App.2021Background
- Plaintiff David Landa, a seaman, was injured on a crane barge during dredging operations approximately one mile off West Hampton Dunes, New York; he sued Weeks Marine under the Jones Act and general maritime law for negligence, unseaworthiness, and maintenance and cure.
- Landa alleged he and the co-worker (Mijares) who caused the injury were recruited and hired in Texas, took pre-employment tests in Texas, were paid into Texas accounts, and that Weeks has contractual obligations to pay maintenance and cure to him in Texas.
- Weeks is incorporated in New Jersey with HQ in Cranford, NJ; its Dredging Division (which employed Landa and Mijares) is based in Covington, Louisiana; Weeks has one Texas regional office (Construction Division in Houston) not involved with these seamen.
- The parties submitted conflicting affidavits: Landa’s affidavit stresses hiring/payment/medical contacts with Texas; Weeks’s Olivo affidavit states hiring, training, and employment decisions were made in Louisiana or New Jersey and the Union is headquartered in New Jersey.
- The trial court denied Weeks’s special appearance (no findings), and Weeks appealed arguing lack of both specific and general personal jurisdiction in Texas; the court of appeals reversed and rendered dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Specific jurisdiction over negligence claim | Landa: recruiting, hiring, tests, pay, and treatment in Texas connect Weeks to Texas and support jurisdiction | Weeks: the injury and operative events occurred offshore in New York; Weeks’s Texas contacts are not substantially connected to the negligence claim | No specific jurisdiction; Weeks’s contacts with Texas are not substantially connected to the operative facts of the negligence claim |
| Specific jurisdiction over maintenance-and-cure claim | Landa: Weeks is contractually obligated to pay maintenance and cure in Texas, and paying/processing those benefits there supports jurisdiction | Weeks: payment or processing of maintenance in Texas alone does not create the necessary suit-related nexus; injury and events occurred outside Texas | No specific jurisdiction; payment/maintenance contacts alone do not establish the requisite nexus |
| General jurisdiction | Landa: Weeks does business in Texas (regional office, projects, revenue) supporting general jurisdiction | Weeks: incorporated and headquartered in NJ; Texas presence is limited (one regional office, ~20 TX employees, low % revenue) and not comparable to being "at home" in Texas | No general jurisdiction; Weeks is not "at home" in Texas and contacts do not meet the high Daimler standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007) (framework: plaintiff pleads jurisdictional facts; defendant must negate all bases; de novo review)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (specific-jurisdiction requires defendant’s own forum contacts; plaintiff’s contacts alone are insufficient)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (general-jurisdiction requires forum contacts so continuous and systematic the corporation is "at home")
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum-contacts and fair-play due-process framework)
- Searcy v. Parex Res., Inc., 496 S.W.3d 58 (Tex. 2016) (Texas exposition of general-jurisdiction "at home" standard)
- BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017) (example of insufficient state contacts for general jurisdiction)
- Meche v. Doucet, 777 F.3d 237 (5th Cir. 2015) (describing maintenance and cure as contractual maritime compensation)