Y. Gina Lisitsa and Lisitsa Law Corporation v. Florina Flit
419 S.W.3d 672
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Lisitsa and Lisitsa Law Corporation, California-based, represented Flit in a California dispute with settlement proceeds held in trust.
- Flit moved to Texas; dispute centered on whether Lisitsa would distribute funds in accord with Flit’s requests.
- Flit sued in Texas for breach of fiduciary duty, fee forfeiture, and accounting; Lisitsa moved to challenge Texas jurisdiction via a special appearance.
- Lisitsa submitted an affidavit asserting no Texas office, assets, or solicitations, and no connection to Texas beyond post-move communications.
- Trial court denied the special appearance; this interlocutory appeal follows seeking reversal and remand.
- Court held the defense did not waive its special appearance and Texas contacts were insufficient for specific jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of special appearance | Flit argues Lisitsa waived by filing in California and sending a Texas letter. | Lisitsa contends no general appearance was made and Rule 120a protections apply. | No waiver of special appearance. |
| Basis for specific jurisdiction | Flit asserts contacts in Texas support specific jurisdiction. | Lisitsa argues no Texas-directed contacts establish minimum contacts. | No specific jurisdiction. |
| Contacts arising from unilateral Texas relocation | Flit claims actions like fiduciary services in Texas create jurisdictional contacts. | Lisitsa argues contacts stem from Flit's unilateral move, not purposeful availment by Lisitsa. | Contacts do not establish specific jurisdiction. |
| Deemed admissions and jurisdiction | Flit relies on deemed admissions to show liability-related contacts. | Deemed admissions do not evidence jurisdictional contacts. | Deemed admissions do not support jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Trejo v. Exito Electronics Co., 142 S.W.3d 302 (Tex. 2004) (special appearance timing and waiver principles)
- Moore v. Elektro-Mobil Technik GmbH, 874 S.W.2d 324 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1994) (letters not general appearances when no jurisdiction acknowledgement)
- Hammer v. N803RA, Inc., 11 S.W.3d 363 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000) (participation in merits discovery not a general appearance)
- Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. 2005) (forum-state torts outside Texas insufficient for jurisdiction)
- Markette v. X-Ray X-Press Corp., 240 S.W.3d 464 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (out-of-state attorney communications generally not purposeful availment)
- Weldon-Francke v. Fisher, 237 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (jurisdictional analysis excludes merits evidence)
- Bryan v. Gordon, 384 S.W.3d 908 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (purposeful availment requires Texas performance, not mere contract with Texas resident)