Ken Hoagland v. Bill Butcher, Kari Butcher, Butcher & Butcher, and OCTV Partners, LLC

182 47.7(a). majority be P. The does not practical legal R.App. effect have no

would jurisdiction why request no is not moot. respondent explain has relator’s cause mo these granting motions and majority any hear these does the cite cases hav Nor on relator’s final have effect tions would that would any precedential sup value ing robbery.2 aggravated for conviction request relator’s proposition that port 484-90; at Armen 360 S.W.3d Holloway, analysis majority’s not moot. The is is 291; Clay, darez, parte Ex S.W.2d at law, contrary to under well-established 677; Grocery at In re HEB 479 S.W.2d appellate which a case moot if *1; Garza, Co., L.P., at 2010 WL ruling any practical court’s cannot have The “collateral con at 727-28. 774 S.W.2d upon controversy. See legal effect Ar yet “capable repetition sequences” mendarez, 291; parte Ex S.W.2d at to the moot exceptions review” evading 677; 479 S.W.2d In re HEB Clay, at Gro proceed in this apply do ness doctrine L.P., *1; Co., 1790881,at cery 2010 WL In State, v. 165 S.W.3d Pharris ing. See Guerra, *1; Garza, at re WL In re Guer (Tex.Crim.App.2005); 727-28; S.W.2d at Houston Teachers Thus, ra, at *1. issues 2009 WL Assoc., 617 S.W.2d at 766-67. Relator’s pro in this mandamus by relator raised be petition should dismissed as moot. moot, court ceeding are and this should petition Because this court denies the petition. See relator’s mandamus dismiss dismissing it the merits rather than as (dismiss Armendarez, 798 S.W.2d at moot, respectfully I dissent. denial appeal pretrial moot from ing as appellant was convicted bail after court); parte Clay, Ex 479 S.W.2d at (same Armendarez); as In re HEB Co., L.P., 1790881,at 2010 WL *1

Grocery (dismissing petition as moot mandamus relief court sought that concluded HOAGLAND, Appellant Ken any exist practical have no effect on Guerra, controversy); 2009 WL ing In re peti BUTCHER, mandamus (dismissing Butcher, at *1 Bill Kari ruling by court Partners, tion as moot because Butcher, & and OCTV practical legal would have no ef appeals LLC, Appellees. (dis fect); Garza, 774 at 727-28 No. 14-11-01074-CV. moot in criminal missing appeal case appeals any ruling by court because of Appeals Court effect). practical legal would have no Dist.). (14th Houston majority requested relator’s denies Jan. dismissing the merits than relief on rathеr Dissenting on Denial of Opinion so, doing In proceeding as moot. 26, 2013. Rehearing Feb. majority upon opinion relies for and there designated publication value. See precedential fore has no Tex. Despite potential post-con- Only at the Texas limited 488-89. Court court, convicting jurisdiction grant Appeals viction in the of Criminal has remedy felony convic- the exclusive from final corpus post-conviction felony relief habeas corpus. See tions is a writ of habeas Tex. Holloway, cases. See 488-89. 11.07; Holloway, Crim. Proc. Code Ann. art.

this case for proceedings further consis- opinion. tent

Background

Hoagland is the chairman of political a effort called the FairTax Campaign. The purpose Campaign the FairTax is to persuade the States Congress United pass replacing bill the current federal payroll income and tax structures with a consumption tax. Bill Appellees and Kari Butcher, California, both residents are general partners appellee Butcher & Butcher, general partnership with its principаl place of business California. July 7, 2009, On Bill and Kari traveled Houston, Texas made a presenta- tion on behalf of & Butcher to a non-profit organization called Americans (AFFT) for Fair during Taxation its board meeting in hopes being by of hired AFFT Brenham, Andy Taylor, Appellant. for promote to Campaign. the FairTax Hoag- Houston, Boyd, William for Appel- Clark present land meeting. was at the AFFT lees. & thereafter hired Butcher Butcher. FROST, Partners, LLC, Panel Appellee consists of Justices OCTV a Cali- CHRISTOPHER, JAMISON. liability company, and fornia limited subse-

quently produce was “political formed to response direct television commercials” PLURALITY OPINION Campaign the FairTax promoting and soli- JAMISON, MARTHA HILL Justice. citing Hoagland funds for AFFT. was one issues, In OCTV, two Ken appellant Hoagland of three initial of managers and Bill challenges the order granting Hoagland, trial court’s was one of five members. in appellees’ OCTV, special appearance capacity and dismiss- his as a of manager along ing underlying We Hoag- managers case. hold with the other and members pleaded Bill), lаnd jurisdictional appel- facts that (including Op- OCTV entered into an lees acts in erating Agreement.1 committed tortious Texas and Op- Pursuant appellees erating did evidence present negat- Agreement, was entitled ing every jurisdiction. yearly basis for We thus distributions “Available reverse the trial court’s order and remand Cash.”2 cuted, although copy may during The record unexecuted been includes an it have No- However, vember Operating Agreement. Hoag- response land’s affidavit in his 2. "Available defined Cash" was as "the special appearance Operat- states that the amount of cash for distribution to available executed, ing Agreement appellees and Managers” the Members and to be distributed dispute do not this fact. The record does not first, as follows: to the members until Agreement Operating

show when the was exe- totaling had received twice distributions their their own ... into infomercial entered OCTV January On paid in alleges he was gain.”4 He also Pursuant to the AFFT. agreement Agreement Operating with the accordance agreed Agreement, OCTV-AFFT owed appellees consulting fees paid contribu- or soliciting infomercials produce him. The first Campaign. for the FairTax tions financed OCTV. be

infomercial would September sued to an escrow would be sent Contributions for breach of asserting claims Houston, Escrow funds Texas. account meruit, in- contract, fraudulent quantum for its compensate OCTV be used to fraud, ducement, seeking injunc- and and finance the infomercials. and to services appellees “from prevent relief tive wrote, develop pro- and helped [Hoag- using and wrongfully appropriating mote, in a 30-minute infom- appeared and likeness, name, proprietary and land’s] that, after OCTV alleges ercial. ‍​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‍series of infomer- in connection with a data infomercial, Bill convinced produced medium messaging social cials and other $3,000 flat fee monthly to take a You Tube Twitter [sic] such as [sic] Avail- distributions of receiving lieu ... the ‘FairTax Cam- connection with ” Agreement Operating under the able Cash following Hoagland alleged the paign.’ might campaign infomercial because the jurisdictional facts: not be successful. made written Each of the Defendants of material 19, 2010, and oral Bill and Kari delivered May

On (while Plaintiff was fact to the Plaintiff meeting board AFFT report at another County, in Harris physically located detailing the suc- presence Texas) conver- telephone via email and July At its infomercial.3 of OCTVs cess meetings during in-person AFFT “had sations meeting, board with the years calendar violations of possible discussion on rely upon Plaintiff would & intention that by Butcher fundraising agreement take action discussion, misrepresentations and Bill and such Butcher.” After taking certain actions or refrain from meeting explain to their joined Kari County, Texas. Further- within Harris and contract viola- performance “financial more, Bill Butcher and Kari Defendants presen- Bill and Kari’s After tion issues.” Houston, Texas, trips made to that Bill and tation, determined the board Butcher, Plain- effort to mislead part of their Kari, Butcher & on behalf of tiff, meetings with Plaintiff by and attended Agreement the OCTV-AFFT breached misrepresenta- which frаudulent compensa- during additional extra “engineering] Defen- by each of the tions were decided to terminate The board tion.” Moreover, Defen- to the Plaintiff. Hoagland as- dants Agreement. FT OCTV-AF money to Plaintiff have sent by AF FT dants were fired serts monies, with an enforceable oral rev- accordance draining ... “inappropriately 2009 during years calendar agreement enues, generated by and other dollars record, contributions; second, it report but 3. The is not our percent 60 to capital Hoagland's affidavit in discussed in managers percent and 40 to members special appellees’ appear- response of his had received distributions until the members ance. contributions; totaling capital four times their thereafter, managers percent 60 dispute According Hoagland, the between percent the members. and 40 through being appellees is resolved AFFT and arbitration. performed by and 2010 for services a personal jurisdiction Whether court has Plaintiff, eventually a but Defendants over nonresident a question dеfendant is agreement Collection, law.5 Type breached their oral with of Am. Culture Inc. Coleman, (Tex. refusing Plaintiff to con- wrongfully 2002); Res., Inc., Meader Plaintiff v. IRA paying money tinue for ser- 338, 342 (Tex.App.-Houston S.W.3d past vices rendered in the and to be [14th 2005, no pet.). trial Recently, rendered in the future. court’s grant deny decision to or special appear wrongfully appropriat- Defendants subject ance is name, to de novo on ap ed the review proprietary likeness peal, exists, but if a dispute factual data Plaintiff belonging to the and re- appellate upon court is called to review the fuse to stop the unauthorized use of trial court’s resolution the factual dis appropriation same. The in- wrongful pute as well. Belgium, BMC public cludes the and use of data display Software Marchand, N.V. v. within the State of Texas on You Tube (Tex.2002); Coleman, 806; 83 S.W.3d at public and other social messaging [sic] Meader, 178 S.W.3d at 342-43. If the trial sites such as Twitter. fact, court does not findings issue inas granted temporary The trial court re- case, a reviewing court pre should straining restraining appellees order from sume the trial court resolved all factual “using displaying referencing or or Plain- disputes in judgment. favor of its Cole name, likeness, voice, image, photos, tiffs man, 806; Meader, 83 S.W.3d at videos, data, scripts, type or other at 343. jurisdiction S.W.3d Personal over image Plaintiff, or property likeness of nonresident defendants satisfies the consti [sic], Twitter, You Tube or any other requirements tutional process of due when networking of social form medium.” the defendant has purposefully established Appellees appearance filed a special al- minimum contacts the forum with state leging that OCTV had no contacts with exercise of is consis Bill’s, Kari’s, Texas and and Butcher & play tent traditional notions of fair Butcher’s contacts with Texas were not Marchand, justice. and substantial related to the transactions at business is- 795; Meader, S.W.3d at in the granted sue lawsuit. The court I. to Plead Burden Suffi- special appearance and dismissed the cient Jurisdictional Facts underlying jurisdiction. case for want findings The court did not issue of Aрpellees that argue fact or of conclusions law. filed did not meet his burden of initial “al trial, motion for new which the trial leging] specific that rise to the facts level court denied. general jurisdiction specific jurisdic of or plaintiff A the tion.” bears initial burden

Discussion alleging bring of facts sufficient to a non Hoagland challenges the trial resident defendant within the terms of the (i.e., grant appearance, court’s of the special long-arm Texas statute for a tort case, claim, underlying dismissal of the plaintiff allege and deni the must that the al motion new trial. defendant committed tortious acts Tex- adjudicate par- We do not (Tex.App.-Houston the merits of the at *5 [14th Dist.] 16, 2004, (mem. Rather, conducting analysis pet.) op.). ties’ claims when Dec. personal jurisdiction. Bougie v. Technical we review the the evidence re- claims and Risks, Inc., 14-03-01222-CV, garding only jurisdictional No. 2004 WL the facts. Id. Constr., Inc., the same elements. as). of action that share Interior v. Gen. Kelly (Tex.2010); id.; Glazner, Cole- See see also Haase 301 S.W.3d (Tex.2001). man, at 807. nonresident S.W.3d 83 S.W.3d the burden of ne- assumes defendant then live Hoagland alleged petition, in his jurisdiction plain- in the gating all bases appellee part, relevant that each “made 658; Kelly, 301 S.W.3d at tiffs allegations. ma- misrepresentations written oral and Coleman, at 807. “Because the ... in Harris [Hoagland] terial fact to scope nature of the and plaintiff defines County, ... via email and telephone Texas lawsuit, corresponding the defendant’s the ... in-person meetings and conversations to the jurisdiction is tied negate burden to [Hoagland] with the that would intention plaintiffs pleading.”6 allegations in and rely upon such at 658. Kelly, S.W.3d take refrain from certain taking action or County, actions within Harris Texas.” long-arm The Texas statute added.) (Emphasis alleged also over a nonresident extends (1) that each “misrepresented part in whole who a tort or “commits then.- and financial such abilities condition Prac. & Tex. Civ. Rem.Code [Texas].” that it would enor- bring was believed 17.042(2)7; Kelly, at § see also skill, and expertise, mous and fraudulent 659. Fraud and inducement to the Campaign] [FairTax donated monies (1) misrepresentation material require (2) fraudulently Hoag- effort” and induced it by a who knew the time was speaker Agree- land signing Operating into recklessly positive false it as a or made alleged ment. further that Bill of the knowledge without assertion $3,000 to take a convinced party that the truth with the intent other (2) monthly fee fee in lieu of the to which he rely reliance misrepresentation, on the Agree- was under the Operating entitled misrepresenta on the party other (3) representation ment Bill’s tion, injury based on resulting of the other Bank, N.A, Hoagland financially benefit more FirstMerit party. In re See (Tex.2001). monthly from fee than from taking Fraud and in the separate taking Operating are the fee outlined inducement causes fraudulent plead bringing appel- to induced him in Texas to do so and that plaintiff 6. “If fails facts long-arm within reach defendant lees him to continue to act Chair- "hired ..., only prove defendant need statute Campaign], man FairTax virtual- [of the write negate juris- in Texas it not live does ly everything campaign related to the ... as Kelly, 301 S.W.3d at 658-59. diction.” appear well as on lоcal national media wholly juris- devoid of pleading When the outlets lead rallies and such.” Tex. facts, plaintiff should amend the dictional 17.042(1), (3). § Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code necessary alle- pleading include the factual However, Hoagland required only al- gations, allowing jurisdiction be based on lege bringing facts one of his claims within allegations. than Id. at 659. evidence rather Ship- the statute. See terms of Horizon LLC, BLyn Holding, building II 324 S.W.3d long-arm of the prongs 7. two stat- The other 840, 2010, (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] ute, applicable to a nonresident who "con- pet.) (holding plaintiff’s allegation no that de- with a Texas resident and either ... tracts Houston, Texas fendants committed torts party perform the contract in whole or in is to bring was sufficient to defendants under the part or who Texas in this state” "recruits long-arm plaintiff's employment for claims of vari- ... for inside or out- statute residents state,” apply Hoag- negligent may misrepresen- side also because ous of fraud and forms tation). alleges land a Texas who en- he is resident appellees tered into a contract after Agrеement.8 tion. We agree. A nonresident defendant may negate jurisdiction on either a factual Hoagland pleaded jurisdic- We conclude legal or basis. Kelly, 301 S.W.3d at 659. appellees tional facts that committed tor- Factually, the may defendant present evi- tious acts—fraud and fraudulent induce- dence that it has insufficient contacts with ment —in Texas. See Kelly, 301 S.W.3d at Texas, effectively disproving plaintiffs (holding 659-60 plaintiff required was allegations. Id. Legally, the defendant allege defendants committed fraudulent may show that even if plaintiffs al- acts in to satisfy Texas his initial burden of leged true, facts are facts); legally evidence is pleading jurisdictional see also Ho- insufficient to establish jurisdiction. Shipbuilding, rizon Inc. v. Id. Blyn II Hold- LLC, ing, 324 S.W.3d 847 (Tex.App.- on contacts which Hoagland relies Houston pet.) no (holding [14th Dist.] in relevant part to support his argument plaintiffs allegation that defendants com- that the trial court could jurisdic- exercise mitted torts in Texas was sufficient to tion over his claims are three AFFT board bring defendants long-arm under the stat- meetings that Bill and Kari Butcher at- ute). Accordingly, Hoagland pleaded alle- tended Texas and Bill’s telephone call gations sufficient to bring appellees within urging Hoagland accept a reduced fee statute, terms of the Texas long-arm under the Operating Agreement.9 Hoag- and the burden shifted to appellees to land averred appellees presen- negate every basis for alleged during tations the board meetings regard- by Hoagland. See Horizon Shipbuilding, ing, respectively, “their qualifications and Inc., 324 847. past performance,” “FairTax,” and “their Appellees’ II. Negate Burden to Ev- performance Partners, under the ‘OCTV ery Basis for Jurisdiction LLC Media Content Production and Fi-

Hoagland argues Agreement’ nancial appellees “made granting court erred in appellees’ special written and misrepresentations oral of ma- appearance because appellees did not ne terial fact” to Hoagland at meetings; gate every ground personal jurisdic- and, call, during phone misrepre- Bill Hoagland alleged [Hoagland] "Bill agrеements called made in Houston and else- $3,000 per and asked him to take where," [the] month agreement OCTVentered into an Specific jurisdiction flat fee.” is not neces- for an up escrow account to be set in Hous- sarily established evidence that a nonresi- ton; (2) appellees made written and oral misrepresentations dent defendant made ‍​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‍in a misrepresentations Hoagland via email and single telephone call ato Texas resident. Cit- telephone conversations while Minnis, Holdings, rin LLC v. 305 S.W.3d appellees Houston. Because we hold that (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] present did not negate jurisdiction evidence to pet.) (citing Easy Country, Michiana Livin’ they allegedly based on torts committed in Holten, (Tex. Inc. v. meetings Texas at the three during board 2005)). But fraudulent call, phone signifi- we need not address the made over a series of contacts to induce a cance of these other contacts. See Horizon party to support per- enter a transaction can Inc., Shipbuilding, (citing 324 S.W.3d at 848 jurisdiction. sonal Id. Operating, Republic Rеtamco Drilling Inc. v. Co., (Tex.2009) ("[T]he following also relies con- (1) analysis minimum-contacts is focused on the tacts: "used ... contacts, quality basis, and nature of the solicit defendant’s funds for OCTV on a national Texas,” number.")); ("Even both outside and rather than their inside the State of Id. appointed Hoagland single OCTV support jurisdiction act can long to serve as its so manager substantial.”). powers "with broad to bind OCTV it is deny call to or making phone Hoagland the in- the Hoagland how successful

sented to otherwise address it. Kassoff stated Hoagland to induce be fomercial would with “[a]ny Plaintiff re- communications Appellees’ special fee. accept a reduced ... garding place that did take OCTV by ex- appearance supported affidavits was by in were conducted tele- California Kari, Bill, the president and by ecuted when phone.” Kassoff admitted that Appellees OCTV, Kassoff. admit Marc Hoagland into contract com- “entered and but meetings Bill attended and Kari ..., with activity menced business & Butcher or Kari deny that Butcher or manager not a officer of was [Kassoff] [Hoagland], any representations “made OCTV.” Texas, the business transac- regarding captioned tion the basis of the Affidavits special made offered a added.) appearance be made on personal Bill did not “shall (Emphasis case.”10 performance their and con- whether this statement chal- financial certain It is unclear lenges representations were made at cerns violations” AFFT that the about contract to the all, presence Hoagland, made in the Hoagland were board. did not state that he was however, or misrepresentations, had a substantial were present meeting; at this Stockholm litiga- operative connection to the facts of the Hoagland was. and Stockholm both stated tion. [appel- that the "determined that these board AFFT, agreement lees] breached their with Hoagland responded with his own affidavit they and that had committed fraud and Stockholm, Terry and AFFT’s the affidavit engineering by breach of contract additional (1) Hoagland acting secretary. statеd that they which compensation extra were not appellees "misrepresented their abilities and prepared board entitled.” Stockholm such that it believed financial condition was minutes, they meeting and were attached as skill, they bring expertise, enormous an exhibit. and the ef- and donated monies to Appellees a supplemental thereafter filed fort"; (2) these were special reply appearance complaining and Texas; Hoagland he while was in made to (1) that and Stockholm’s affidavits (3) misrepresentations Hoag- and induced [Hoagland failed to show “how and Stock- signing Operating Agreement. land into (2) personal knowledge”; holm] obtained statement, Hoagland In at- conclusions; legal arguments and contained meeting board from tached the AFFT minutes (3) only but did raised fact issues not conclu- meeting July 2009 board which state (4) sively prove jurisdiction; contained hear- presentation that Kari made a to the Bill and say from inadmissible and from documents Butcher & "re- board on behalf of Butcher (5) meetings; misleading AFFT boаrd garding qualifications past perform- and their affidavits; regarding statements exhibits meeting. present was at the ance.” (6) conclusoiy. Appellees are ar- also appellees' misrepresen- that stated gued allege "did not that or offer meeting also induced AFFT to tations at this [fjraud alleged proof agreement. that was com- enter into the OCTV-AFFT OCTV,” Hoagland only alleged mitted ... stated that Bill and Kari further misrepresentations by Butcher & May presentation to AFFT on made another AFFT, fraud, appellees and even if committed Hoagland and Stockholm single juris- act of fraud would confer During presentation, Bill attendance. diction court. on the Texas Because we hold report provided "touting] Kari negate jurisdiction did not TV.” achievements of FairTax Stockholm appellees’ purportedly committing based on presentation "regarding stated the Texas, Kari, [Bill, fraud we do not the evi- address work and Butcher & had Butcher] presented by Hoagland appellees’ or dence being employed.” Hoagland done since аt- objections Kelly, evidence. See to that report as an tached the exhibit. Stockholm minutes, (noting pres- once prepared meeting at 659 defendant the board ents evidence that it has contacts with were attached as exhibit. respond plaintiff Bill and then can with its own stated Kari made anoth- 29, 2010, presentation July allegations). er "regarding affirm its evidence to

193 knowledge specific shall set forth (affirming trial court’s [and] exclusion of as would be admissible evidence.” facts nonresident’s statements that he did not 120a(3); see Tex.R. Civ. P. also Ennis v. have a Texas, substantial connection with Loiseau, 698, (Tex.App.- 164 703 S.W.3d plaintiffs’ claims did not result from and 2005, Special pet.). appearance Austin no any were not related to affiant’s activi- “direct, affidavits must also be unmistak- Texas, ties affiant did not have any able, to unequivocal the facts sworn continuing systematic or contacts with Ennis, 703; 164 at to.” S.W.3d see also and affiant not any did commit tort Inc., Wright Sage v. 137 Eng’g, Texas); S.W.3d Wright, see also 137 S.W.3d at 238, 250 n. 8 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 250 n. 8 (holding nonresident’s statement denied). 2004, pet. conclusory A statе- he that had committed torts in Texas provide does not underlying ment the facts properly as conclusory). excluded support Pipkin to conclusion. v. Kro- similarly Kassoffs affidavit is concluso- Tex., (Tex. L.P., ger 383 S.W.3d ry. Kassoff stated he was not a manager filed). App.-Houston pet. [14th Dist.] officer or when “en- Conclusory affidavits are not sufficient to into tered contract and [the] commenced they raise fact issues are not because cred- activity business with OCTV.” Kassoff did being readily or susceptible ible contro- provide facts underlying support Hood, (citing Group verted. Id. Ryland his conclusions that OCTV never “ha[d] (Tex.1996) (per 924 S.W.2d cu- any had contacts Texas” and OCTVs riam)). testimony Affidavit that is conclu- communications with all took sory substantively defective and place in on California or the telephone. amounts to no evidence.12 Coastal Ennis, 703-04; see also Transp. Co. v. Crown Cent. Petroleum Wright, 137 n. S.W.3d at 250 8. We con- (Tex.2004). Corp., appellees negate jurisdiction clude did not

Here, Bill, Kari, appellees and Butcher aon factual they basis because failed to dispute they & did not at- present they evidence had insufficient tended the meetings three board or that Kelly, contacts with Texas. See they made the alleged by statements S.W.3d at 659. Hoagland. Appellees any did include We next analyze appellees whether ne- regarding details what statements were gated legal by basis show- during presentations, made whether ing even if Hoagland’s alleged facts were only the statements were as part true, legally the evidence is insufficient to presentations to a or group, whether jurisdiction. See id. We thus appellees had conversations with whether Hoagland’s allegations, address if and, Hoagland, so, if content of those true, established that had suffi- Appellees merely conversations. stated cient minimum contacts with Texas sup- did not make port jurisdiction. the exercise of personal Hoagland in Texas regarding business Purposeful transaction made the cap- basis Availment. To determination, tioned case. We conclude these analyze state- make this we first unsupported legal ments are factual and “pur whether the nonresident defendants Ennis, conclusions. See 164 S.W.3d at posefully privi- availed” themselves Greenwood, Objections relating to substantive defects han v. (Tex.App.Houston pet. in affidavits are not waived the failure de- [14th nied). ruling from obtain court. McMa- 194 Attending the board meet- in Texas. own actions. conducting business

lege of Rudzewicz, not or ings and random purposeful v. 471 U.S. Corp. Burger King 2174, appellees intended to 462, 475, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 fortuitous because 105 S.Ct. keep ongoing and busi- Easy Country, obtain business (1985); Livin’ Michiana (Tex. Holten, 777, AFFT. Kari relationship S.W.3d 784 ness Bill and Inc. 168 v. 2005). affirmed both to Texas availment the ‍​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‍“touch- “traveled Purposeful is They related to both process.” [AFFT].” due Hol- business jurisdictional stone of ten, they “made key princi- trips 784. Three also affirmed that several at 168 S.W.3d analysis to Texas” on behalf of & Butcher purposeful of ples our govern First, period approximately of one “[o]ver at 785. the court availment. Id. actions; Also, year.” Hoagland alleged, it own as OCTV considers the defendant’s political advocacy “providfe] of wаs formed to activity the unilateral does not consider promote Second, fundraising and services” con- Id. the court party. another which not Campaign, FairTax OCTV does actions whether the defendant’s siders Thus, deny.13 appellees sought profit “random, than iso- were rather purposeful id. from the See We con- Third, presentations. lated, Id. the defen- or fortuitous.” them- appellees purposely clude availed benefit, advantage, “some dant seek must busi- privilege conducting selves of the privi- itself’ profit by ‘availing’ or in ness See id. at 848-49. Texas. Id. The lege doing Texas. business be must considered as contacts defendant’s Connection Substantial isolation; we focus on a and not whole the Causes of Action. Minimum contacts quality the contacts. nature may give types to two of personal rise Assurance, v. Royal Exch. Ltd. Guardian jurisdiction: jurisdiction gen specific P.L.C., English Clays, 815 S.W.2d China Minnis, jurisdiction.14 eral 305 at S.W.3d 223, (Tex.1991); Holdings, n. 11 Citrin 230 specific jurisdiction 279. is assert When (Tex. Minnis, S.W.3d 305 279 LLC v. ed, here, court focuses on rela pet.). App.-Houston [14th defendant, forum, tionship between the defendаnts, multiple When there are the litigation. Helicopteros Nacio defendant must be ana- contacts of each Colombia, Hall, nales de S.A. v. 466 U.S. Jones, v. lyzed individually. See Colder 408, 414, 1868, 80 404 104 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 79 S.Ct. U.S. (1984); Expeditions Mold Mac River Minnis, (1984); at L.Ed.2d 804 (Tex.2007). Drugg, 279. of action must “arise out of or cause appellees relate to” the nonresident con significant It do defendant’s is presentations Royal, in tacts forum. deny they conducted with the Guardian Inc., jurisdiction Specific at 228. Shipbuilding, Horizon S.W.2d Texas. See appellees’ These were over nonresident defendant is estab 849. jurisdiction single personal 14. A argued purposely it did not avail basis for jurisdiction sufficient to confer over a defen- privilege doing itself of the business Minnis, dant. S.W.3d at 279. The court Operating Agreement because the con- Texas general jurisdiction if it need not address selecting clause Cali- tained a choice-of-law subject specific finds that a defendant is merely fornia law. A choice-of-law clause is jurisdiction. specific Id. If the court finds determining one whether factor to consider jurisdiction over a defendant on one based jurisdiction over a forum state has action, the court need cause of not address defendant, disposi- it nonresident but is not other as to causes of action. Minnis, tive. 305 S.W.3d at Id. lished if the defendant’s activities were We conclude did negate purposefully directed to the forum state jurisdiction on a legal basis because and there is a substantial connection be failed show that Hoagland’s allegations, tween defendant’s forum contacts and true, if would not support jurisdiction. See operative litigation. facts of the Moki Kelly, Thus, 301 S.W.3d at 659. appellees’ Mac, 221 at 585. S.W.3d contacts with alleged by Hoag land, were sufficient to specific confer ju

Appellees argue attending the risdiction on meetings board did not the Texas Hoag- “relate to” court.16 land’s telephone claims and calls cannot III. Traditional Play Notions of Fair support personal jurisdiction in Texas. and Substantial Justice fraud, Hoagland alleged fraudulent in ducement, meruit, quantum and breach of If the nonresident defendant contract Hoаgland’s claims. fraud and has minimum contacts with the forum fraudulent inducement claims rest on what state, we must then determine whether appellees communicated or failed to com exercise of personal jurisdiction over the municate at the meetings board in Hous nonresident offends traditional notions of ton and during phone Bill’s call Hoag- play fair justice. and substantial Burger Inc., land. See Horizon Shipbuilding, 324 King, 2174; 471 U.S. at 850; 105 S.W.3d at S.Ct. see also In re FirstMerit Bank, Inc., 52 S.W.3d at (listing 758 Horizon Shipbuilding, elements 324 S.W.3d at fraud); Haase, 62 S.W.3d at 798 (noting making determination, 851. In we fraud and fraudulent inducement share (1) defendant, consider the burden on the elements). same require These claims (2) the interests of the forum state in that Hoagland relied on what was or was (3) adjudicating dispute, plaintiffs communicated and that suf interest in obtaining convenient and effec injury fered as a result. See Horizon (4) relief, tive judicial the interstate sys Inc., Shipbuilding, S.W.3d tem’s interest in obtaining the most effi Thus, the operative facts for these claims (5) controversies, cient resolution of are events that occurred Houston and the shared interests of the several states phone the content of the conversation be in furthering fundamental substantive so id.; Bill Hoagland. tween See see Aviation, cial policies. Nogle & Black Inc. Minnis, 305 S.W.3d at (acknowledging Faveretto, (Tex. call, single telephone conjunction App.-Houston pet.). [14th Dist.] fraudulent made over When the nonresident pur defendant has contacts, a series of can support personal posefully established minimum contacts jurisdiction). Here, the alleged misrepre state, with the forum only in rare instances sentations are Hoagland’s the core of will jurisdiction the exercise of not com arguably fraud claims and of his breach of port with fair play justice. and substantial contract quantum meruit claims be Union, Angelou v. Overseas cause he alleges he entered into the con African (Tex. App.-Houston tracts at issue in reliance on the alleged [14th misrepresentations.15 2000, no pet.) (citing See Horizon Guardian Ship Roy Inc., building, al, 231). 324 S.W.3d at 850. 815 S.W.2d at claims all arise from general the same 16. We jurisdiction. do not address facts, analyze sо we Minnis, do not need to his other 305 S.W.3d at 279. jurisdictional purposes. claims for FROST, Justice, KEM THOMPSON appearance, a defen special

In a concurring. presenting “a burden of dant bears presence of some compelling case appeal, appel- In this special-appearance render un consideration lant/plaintiff Hoagland challenges Ken Inc., Shipbuilding, Horizon reasonable.” granting special ap- trial court’s order (citing Royal, Guardian at 851 Bill pearance by appellees/defendants filed 231). burden, Despite this at Butcher, Butcher, Butcher Kari & Butch- (hereinafter analyze this in their er, Partners, not issue appellees did and LLC Parties”). merely They motion. For collectively the “Butcher special appearance below, consider, in spe- their a court reasons discussed factors must listed the Butcher appearances, cial Parties did jurisdic of argue but exercise did not present negating the asser- evidence fair traditional notions of tion offend spe- personal jurisdiction tion of based on justice. As discussed play substantial and Therefore, it is jurisdiction. proper cific pur concluded above, appellees have we reverse court’s order and remand the trial themselves of the Texas fo availed posely proceedings. case this for further a substantial connection rum there is and contacts with Texas appellees’ Hoagland alleges between In his fol- petition, as Moreover, claims. Hoagland’s and lows: has an obvious interest

state of Texas (cid:127) The which form the of events basis for resolving disputes a forum providing County, in Harris this suit occurred citizens, particularly disputes its involving Texas. allegedly the defendant commit which (cid:127) Hoagland is a resident Harris Coun- part or in in Texas. ted in whole a tort ty, Texas. id.; Blair Banking also D.H. Inv. see (cid:127) Each the Butcher Parties made (Tex. Reardon, 269, Corp. 97 S.W.3d written and oral

App.-Houston pet. dism’d [14th email, material fact w.o.j.). appellees hold did not show We conversations, telephone and in-person ‍​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‍juris court’s exercise in Har- meetings while the nonresident would offend diction over ris County, Texas. of fair play notions and sub

traditional (cid:127) Bill trips and Kari Butcher made justice. stantial Texas, Houston, part effort their and Hoagland,

to mislead attended with which meetings during Conclusion misrepresentations were fraudulent appellant pleaded ju- Having concluded each of the Butcher Parties facts committed risdictional to Hoagland. in Texas and appellees acts did tortious (cid:127) money The have Butcher Parties sent jurisdiction, every basis for we negate in accordance with an en- court in granting the trial erred conclude agreement during oral calen- forceable appellees’ special appearance and dismiss- dar 2009 and 2010 services years ing reverse the trial court’s the case. We but performed by Hoagland, eventual- for proceedings remand consis- order and ly Parties their the Butcher breached opinion. tent with Hoagland by with agreement oral refusing paying to continue wrongfully FROST, J., Hoagland for services ren- concurring. money to and to al past speсific-jurisdiction dered in the be rendered under a analysis if the the future. defendant enters into a contract that has a substantial connection (cid:127) -wrongful- In the Butcher Parties and thereby purposefully di- name, ly like- appropriated rects his activities towards Texas. See ness, data, proprietary Operating, Retamco v. Republic Inc. use of stop refuse to unauthorized Co., Drilling 338-41 wrongful the same. The appropriation (Tex.2009); Zac Smith & v.Co. Otis Ele- display use of public includes Inc., vator, (Tex. pub- data within the State of Texas on 1987); Int’l, Nance Inc. v. OceanMaster messaging lic social sites. PTE, Ltd., Engineering No. 01-11-00664- (cid:127) Parties hired CV, (Nov. 2012 WL *5-8 act as of the continue to Chairman (mem. 2012, pet.) Intercarga, no op.); virtually FairTax to write Campaign, Inc., Companies, S.A. v. Fritz No. 14-02- to the everything campaign, related 00297-CV, 21402583, 2003 WL at *7-8 appear well as to local and national (June (mem. 19, 2003, pet.) op.). no and media outlets to lead rallies. In of their support special appearances, Hoagland alleges breach of contract as the Butcher Partiеs submitted affidavits claim, primary alleges his and he also Butcher, Butcher, from William Kari and meruit, inducement, quantum fraudulent only Marc Kassoff. The fraud, evidence that ar- wrongful and appropriation guably speaks to the at location which Hoagland’s Though name and likeness. Hoagland performed his services is the allegations makes various following statement in the affi- contained variety against asserts claims the Parties, Kari the davits of both Butcher and Marc Kas- gravamen Hoag- Butcher soff: my knowledge “To best of performed land’s lawsuit that he vari- belief, ous all support regarding services in of the FairTax transactions Partners, LLC, place Campaign under contract with the Butch- OCTV have taken in Parties, er Butcher have Such lack proba- and the Parties California.” statements insufficient, breached paying legally their contract tive value and are even According objection by for these services.1 absent in the trial Arias, petition, Hoagland performed his these court.2 274 See Kerlin v. S.W.3d 666, (Tex.2008); Wiseman, services in and the Par- v. Butcher 668 Deacetis 14-09-00308-CV, 2731040, ties sent money under No. at WL agreement enforceable for 2 (Tex.App.-Houston July oral services *3 n. [14th Dist.] (mem. performed 13, 2010, Thus, by Hoagland. Contracting pet.) op.). no with a sending pay- Texas resident and Butcher Parties no competent submitted ments to Texas under a contradicting Hoagland’s allega- contract do evidence jurisdiction; alone he specific performed howev- tion that the services in er, may subject question defendant be in Texas. person- conducting dissenting In personal-jurisdiction opin- cases The two cited review, analysis contrary. Grupo under the case this court ion do not hold to the TMM, Perez, 357, adjudicate does not the merits of S.A.B. v. Risks, Inc., 2010, Bougie v. (Tex.App.-Houston pet. claims. See Technical de- [14th Dist.] 14-03-01222-CV, 2902508, Greenwood, nied); No. 2004 WL McMahan v. 16, (Tex. (Tex.App.-Houston App.-Houston [14th *5 Dist.] [14th Dist.] Dec. (mem. denied). op.). pet.) pet. no Thus, w.o.j.). dism’d pet. addition, Parties submit- the Butcher

In Par the Butcher granting evidence contra- erred court legally sufficient ted no allegation proper and the appearances, dicting Hoagland’s special ties’ oral into an entered trial court’s order Parties reverse the course is to of services performance agreement proceedings. for for further and remand con- of the affidavits None by Hoagland. reasons, respectfully I foregoing For contradicting allega- this tain statements judgment. in the court’s concur Butcher, Butcher,3 or Kari to Bill tion as Partners, Bill affi- LLC. Butcher’s CHRISTOPHER, J., dissenting. that Butcher & a denial davit contains into contracts Butcher entered CHRISTOPHER, Justice, TRACY the transactions regarding dissenting. suit, this statement is but the basis of insuffi- legally therefore conclusory and that the opinion concludes plurality Montgomery, Wadewitz cient. See properly ne- failed Butchers and OCTV (Tex.1997); Inc. v. every gate ground 14-11-00056-CV, Clark, 2012 WL No. that, Hoagland’s petition alleged (Tex. App.-Houston [14th at *3 therefore, not shift the burden did (mem. 2, 2012, op.). pet.) Feb. facts. prove jurisdictional to his Hoagland (1) affidavits state also contain The It, well at 9-12. as as Plurality Opinion Butcher that some of the denying ments appel- all opinion, rejects concurring to representations made Parties conclusory. respectful- I affidavits as lees’ transac regarding business Texas reject disagree, that we should ly (2) case, and the basis of this tion made provide it did not affidavit because of the denying that some statements facts to its conclu- underlying any to payments Parties made sions. that transac regarding in Texas conclusory Second, that the Butch- agree are I do not These statements tion. conclusory they insufficient. Wa are so legally and therefore ers’ affidavits Inc., B.Z.B., 466; dewitz, to 951 S.W.2d at not shift the burden did 353783,at *3. plurali- 2012 WL jurisdictional facts. The prove his Hoagland’s plead- concludes ty opinion three submitted The Butcher Parties made written and appellee each ing affidavits, containing various state short —that fact to of material misrepresentations oral The insufficient. legally ments that are County in Harris sufficient legally are affidavits that portions of these —is facts,1 it re- jurisdictional yet pleading satisfy the sufficient do not suffice conclusory the Butchers’ state- jects as negating Butcher Parties’ burden any repre- not make ments that did based on assertion of regarding in Texas sentations In D.H. Blair specific jurisdiction. See made the basis of transaction the business Corp., 97 S.W.3d Banking vestment case. captioned (Tex.App.-Houston [14th argued affidavit, Hoagland, appellees at the that she 1. Unlike Kari Butcher states In her [Hoagland] appeal sign any brief on "did contracts with court and in their regarding made the basis allegations the transactions con- Hoagland's jurisdictional are Even if this captioned in Texas.” case clusory. conclusory, it does not were not statement address oral contracts. Hoagland’s pleading AFFT, contains the follow- related to but denied that the Tex- ing jurisdictional allegations:2 as visits any related to personal transac- tion with Hoagland. Bill Butcher stated

Each of the Defendants made written the following: oral misrepresentations of material I am a resident of California. At no (while fact to the Plaintiff Plaintiff was material time have I been a resident of physically located in County, Harris Texas. I do not maintain a place of Texas) via email telephone conver- business Texas. I have traveled to sations in-person meetings during Texas on business related to Americans years calendar 2009 and with the For (AFFT), Fair an organiza- Taxation intention that Plaintiff rely upon tion which party is not a to this lawsuit. such and take action Over period of approximately one or refrain from taking certain actions year I trips made several my to Texas in within Harris County, Texas. Further- capacity as President and CEO of Cor- more, Defendants Bill Butcher and Kari porate Butcher, Partner in Butcher and Houston, Texas, trips Butcher made a California General Partnership of Cor- part of their effort to mislead Plain- porations. Butcher and Butcher does tiff, meetings and attended with Plaintiff not maintain a place of business in Tex- during which fraudulent misrepresenta- as. Butcher and Butcher does not oth- tions were each of the Defen- erwise transact business in Texas. dants to the Plaintiff. Butcher and Butcher any never made plurality opinion recites other state- representations Plaintiff, Texas, re- ments frоm Hoagland’s pleading,3 but garding the business transaction made facts, these were not jurisdictional listed as the basis of the captioned case. Butcher nor does the pleading state that these and Butcher did not enter into con- representations were made at the “in-per- tracts with Plaintiff regarding the trans- meetings son” in Hoagland Houston. did actions made the basis of the captioned allege not even phone that the calls to case in Texas. It never any pay- made Hoagland were made while he was in ments to Plaintiff in Texas regarding the short, Houston.4 In jurisdictional the alle- transaction made the- basis of cap- gations are generic, generic and the rebut- tioned case. It never engaged any in tal the Butchers should be sufficient to Plaintiff, business activities with in Tex- negate allegations require and Hoag- as, regarding transactions made the prove jurisdictional land to his facts. basis of Plaintiffs case. The Butchers’ affidavits acknowledged Kari Butcher made the following state- they that traveled to Texas on business ments: jurisdictional allega- made other signing Operating Agreement. Hoagland plurality correctly tions that the alleged has discount- further that Bill convinced $3,000 opinion. ed in its take monthly to a fee in lieu of the fee to which Operating he was entitled under the Agreement representation based on Bill's plurality opinion

3. The that also contends that financially would benefit more jurisdictional these are "Hoagland facts: also taking monthly from (1) taking fee than from alleged 'misrepresen- each Operating Agreement." the fee outlined in the ted their abilities and financial condition such Plurality Opinion at 190-91. bring that it was believed enor- skill, expertise, personal mous and donat- Campaign] ed monies to the age [FairTax effort’ 4.In phones, phone of cell a call can (2) fraudulently induced placed anywhere anywhere. into be and answered Constr., Inc., rior At the of California. a resident

I am (Tex.2010). time, in the temporarily I am present York, yet I have not but New State of Third, plurality’s I with the disagree York, al- of New a resident become plu The of the OCTV affidavit. analysis my residеnce change to I intend though failed rality concludes OCTV also At no material in 2011. New York Marc allegations because rebut I a resident of Texas. I been time have a that he was not affidavit stated Kassoff s business in place maintain do not Hoag- when manager or officer OCTV to Texas on traveled Texas. I have into the contract land entered for Fan- to Americans related business Kassoff lacked allegation that OCTV—an (AFFT), which organization Taxation This is a defect knowledge. lawsuit. Over party to this is not affidavit. should the form of the year I made one period approximately the affidavit objected have my capacity to Texas trips several not, Hoagland he Because did court. Part- Corporate and CEO President TMM, Grupo issue on appeal. waived this Butcher, a California ner in Butcher (Tex. Perez, 327 S.W.3d S.A.B. v. I Partnership Corporations. General 2010, pet. de App.-Houston Dist.] [14th business in transact do not otherwise Greenwood, nied); McMahan business with the Texas. I am familiar (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Partners, regarding transactions denied) (еxplaining that pet. LLC, of Plaintiffs the basis that are form, hearsay, specu such as objections never travelled I have cause of action. lation, by a failure competence, are waived with Plaintiff with to Texas to confer course, above, as noted object). Of Partners, I LLC. respect to OCTV issue, either Hoagland did not raise representations to any have never only the appeal; the trial court or on Plaintiff, the busi- regarding plurality then holds plurality has. the basis of the transaction made ness underly provide that Kassoff did not any con- sign I did not captioned case. his conclusions—but ing facts to the trans- regarding Plaintiff tracts with make conclusions. He Kassoff did not captioned of the made the basis actions communications stated facts—“OCTV’s I have never made case in Texas. took place with all California regarding in Texas to Plaintiff payments This is sufficient to telephone.” or on the made the basis the the transaction Hoagland’s jurisdictional allegations. rebut engaged I have never case. captioned Plaintiff, activities with business and of The affidavits of the Butchers Texas, the transactions regarding the burden are sufficient to shift Kassoff of Plaintiffs case. made the basis jurisdictional prove to his to have reviewed all facts. We then should plurality the that these disagree I with facts, the trial jurisdictional and since the conclusory. Both affidavits affidavits are fact, findings of we judge did not issue but con- acknowledged the visits the trial court re- presumed have should Texas visits were related tended that the in favor of its disputes all factual solved business and not the to AFFT Collection, Type Am. Culture judgment. making. is I that complaints (Tex. Coleman, 801, 806 Inc. v. Butchers’ affidavits hold that the Res., Inc., 2002); IRA 178 Meader v. prove the burden to shifted 338, (Tex.App.-Houston [14th 343 Inte- S.W.3d Kelly facts. v. Gen. jurisdictional his 2005, plurality no pet.). interlocutory appeal Because the Dist.] authorized sec- by so, 51.014(a)(7) respectfully I dissent. did not do tion of the Civil Practice and Code); (Australia) Canyon Remedies Rehearing denied. Pty., Contractors, Ltd. v. Maersk Pty., J., Ltd., dissenting. 08-00-00248-CV, Christopher, No. 2002 WL 997738, 16, (Tex.App.-El May at *4 Paso CHRISTOPHER, Justice, TRACY denied) (not 2002, pet. designated pub- for of rеhearing. denial dissenting lication) (concluding interlocutory ap- that I from the denial of the motion dissent peal “mandatory” was not and trial court’s rehearing this case for all of the special appearance grant could be re- I my reasons that outlined in dis- original appeal viewed on from final judgment); sent. The Butchers have lost a valuable Golden, 301, but see Matis right early review through hyper- a (con- (Tex.App.-Waco pet.) no controverting view of their technical affida- cluding challenge that denying to order vits, the result plaintiff that the never special appearance, raised for the first jurisdictional had to his None prove facts. time on appeal from final judgment, was appearance of the cited special cases untimely parties bring because failed opinion similar, plurality as each appeal). interlocutory Ultimately, if merits of jurisdictional reached the support facts personal jurisdiction, do not issue, the plurality while does not. GJP, be case will reversed. See plurаlity holding did find that S.W.3d at 866-67. true, alleged by facts are multiple We do not want to encourage only properly that Butchers failed to issue, appeals usually of an and this is negate jurisdictional Hoag- facts in precluded under the law of the doc case land’s I petition. acknowledge that there trine. when we But do not reach are a currently no cases hold defen merits of an issue or when the facts special appearance dant can its affi amend change, may apply. the law the case appeal,1 davit after an but is some there v. Cunningham, See Virani No. 14-11- proce case law that would such (Tex. 00331-CV, 2012 WL at *6-7 Austin, dure. Dawson-Austin v. 2, 2012, App.-Houston [14th Feb. (Tex.1998) (allowing S.W.2d (mem. denied) pet. op.) law of (discussing after an amendment initial of the denial and noting case doctrine that if issues special appearance). Supreme And the change, may or facts law of the case no held that a Court has defective affidavit Harris, longer apply); City Houston v. special appearance does not convert a intо 171-72 (Tex.App.-Houston Co., general one. Exito Ltd. v. Elecs. pet.) (concluding [14th Dist.] (Tex.2004). Trejo, 142 S.W.3d court of decision appeals’ affirming denial holding encourages Our an inefficient city’s plea jurisdiction first system may the Butchers be able also purposes not law of the case for of second this issue on final re-urge appeal. See interlocutory appeal from denial of plea GJP, Ghosh, Inc. 866- claim). another (Tex.App.-Austin pet.) (holding appellate special urge Supreme to review I Texas take Court to rulings appearance solely plurality was not limited this case reverse the opinion special appearance 1. This the first time that Fourteenth of a under the burden- Appeals shifting has analysis. Court of not reached the merits submit can that a defendant clarify or to special its affidavits

amended the circumstances under appearance grants a trial court where this case: court appellate and an appearance special inadequa- because that decision ‍​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‍reverses defendant, with of the in the affidavits cies never shifted the burden result that jurisdictional prove his plaintiff facts. of G.W.

In the Matter No. 08-11-00114-CV. Appeals of Court Paso. El Feb.

Case Details

Case Name: Ken Hoagland v. Bill Butcher, Kari Butcher, Butcher & Butcher, and OCTV Partners, LLC

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas

Date Published: Jan 24, 2013

Citation: 396 S.W.3d 182

Docket Number: 14-11-01074-CV

Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.