Lujan v. Sun Exploration & Production Co.

her apparently misrepresented had certi er employ her approved

fication to whoever Still, reporter. “roving”

ment as the court absence of the harshness fault and reporter does

the result not make the court nor

certified does it make the record proper.

more of the rules terms

statutes, since she not a certified court

reporter, bystand she was no more than (Tex. State,

er. See Soto

Crim.App.1984) where the court reversed

and remanded a assault misdemeanor case the record prepared deputy

county clerk certified rather than a court

reporter. suggest pleasure

It is with no that I

ease, fully fairly which has been tried jury,

ato be reversed because of noncom- However,

pliance with a rule. “technical” integrity system dictates that

appellate require- records meet minimum

ments, one of is which a statement facts reporter.

certified court official One prerequisites an official reporter is

court certified. Since

of the statement in this case of facts does requirements,

not meet these I would re-

verse and remand for a new trial. Since majority not, respectfully does dis-

sent. al., LUJAN, Appellants, P.

Estela et &

SUN EXPLORATION PRODUCTION Service,

COMPANY

Inc., Appellees.

No. 05-89-01448-CV. Appeals

Court of

Dallas. 2, 1990.

Oct.

Rehearing Nov. Denied WHITHAM, OVARD and

Before WHITTINGTON, JJ.

OPINION WHITTINGTON, Justice. appeals Lujan (Lujan) P.

Estela jurisdiction in sustaining plea to order Services, (Chapar- Inc. favor of error, Lujan ral). point her sole court erred in sus- that the trial contends that Cha- taining plea by the evidence to parral shown had been continuous contacts systematic and have and to have taken State of Texas with the steps submit itself to the purposeful We jurisdiction of Texas courts. sustain judgment of point and Lujan’s reverse court. the trial

FACTS (the Lujan Elias September On "decedent”) explosion at an was killed Eunice, storage facility located tank decedent, a resident Mexico. The New Chapar- Mexico, employee was an New ral, corporation. At New Mexico death, per- the decedent was time of his a contract between forming work under & Produc- Exploration and Sun (“Sun”), corpora- a Delaware Company tion Midland, Texas and offices in tion with Hobbs, Mexico. wife, decedent’s Lujan,

Estela against action wrongful death brought this County, Dallas Texas Chaparral in part of negligence on the Sun alleging gross negligence appearance to con- special filed a jurisdiction. After court’s entered an order hearing, the trial court holding sustaining plea jurisdiction, minimum sufficient lacked jurisdiction. Texas to PERSONAL JURISDICTION error, Lujan point contends In her sole sustaining Cha- trial court erred that the jurisdiction of parral’s plea to Hall, P.C., Antonio, for Thomas C. San contends that busi- court. She appellants. suf- Texas constitute both ness contacts purposeful Gilmore, Dallas, minimum contacts and appellees. ficient Matt conducting permits. constitution privilege of as far as the federal availment of the Burt, Adv., Inc. v. See U-Anchor activities, invoking thus the benefits and denied, cert. (Tex.1977), responsibili- protections of Texas laws and ty agree. laws. We order to exercise over a Schapiro, v. Schlobohm recently in Most non-resident, requires that such law (Tex.1990), the Texas Su- 784 S.W.2d 355

jurisdiction be authorized under the Texas the formula used to preme modified Court long arm statute1 and fed- consistent with jurisdic- the exercise of determine whether guarantees eral and of state constitutional process. To with due tion is consistent See Tex.Civ.PRAC. & Rem.Code process. due the boundaries jurisdiction within establish (Vernon 1986). 17.069 The Texas § Ann. must show that: due the record of long expressly arm statute authorizes the (1) foreign defendant or The nonresident exercise over those who do purposefully do some corporation must in business the state. Section 17.042 of the or consummate some transaction act provides Code that: state; may In addition to other acts that consti- from, arise (2) of action must The cause doing tute a nonresident does with, act or transac- connected such or be business this state if the nonresident: of action does tion. Even if the cause (1) by mail or otherwise with a contact, jurisdic- specific not arise from party Texas resident and either is to exercised if the defendant’s may tion perform the contract or in whole continuing and Texas are state; part in this systematic; (2) commits a tort in whole or by the (3) assumption state; this traditional must not offend forum state (3) residents, directly recruits Texas jus- notions through intermediary located this given to the tice, consideration state, employment for inside or outside nature, activity extent of the quality, this state. state, the relative conve- in the forum case, Chaparral In en the instant parties, the benefits nience of the Sun, tered Texas with forum state the laws of the protection of corporation, perform Delaware oil field and the respective parties, afforded the period, During service work. the contract situation. equities of the basic Chaparral and made several contacts Sun Schlobohm, at 358. The Schlo S.W.2d mail. also sent its bohm decision was subsequent rendered per and to supplies into Texas to obtain by the trial court in entry judgment contracts with form occasional work under the instant case. conclude that companies. We Texas-based goal process the due An essential Texas, as a re Chaparral’s contacts with the defendant. World-Wide protect is to Sun, relationship with sult of its business Woodson, Corp., v. Volkswagen under clearly “doing business” constitute 559, 564, 100 S.Ct. 62 L.Ed.2d Thus, requirement 17.042. section Schlobohm, (1980); at 357. 784 S.W.2d long arm stat jurisdiction under the Texas Thus, must be prongs all three of the test ute has been met. jurisdiction in the forum met however, Court, if the exer re- Supreme now must determine We state. The test, application is consistent with jects cise of mechanical In- the Schlobohm guarantees including formula. federal and state constitutional stead, as Schlobohm regards the formula process. The Texas Court of due helps checklist which language jurisdictional of section a useful has held that the broad aspects of all consideration long arm statute reach ensure 17.042 allows 1986), (Vernon hereinafter Code long under and Remedies generally arm statute is codified 1. The Texas as Code”. referred to "the seq. Civil Practice 17.042 et of the Texas section analysis. Schlobohm, 1979, Chaparral necessary entered into a con- tract with Sun field services No service was

on an “as needed basis.” The first under the Schlo- for Sun rendered period bohm formula concerns “minimum con during that of time. analysis. liability and worker’s com-

tacts” See World-Wide Volks maintained both coverage Woodson, 292, pensation in the State wagen Corp. inception of Texas from the its contract 564; at International Co. Shoe and also maintained with Sun Washington, 326 U.S. liability policy with commercial umbrella (1945); L.Ed. 1986, Chaparral Employers of Texas. 358. The minimum contacts perform oil ser- entered a contract to field narrow, analysis focusing is somewhat this Oxy Services under vices USA. relationship defendant, by have rendered in Texas been forum, litigation. Helicopte and the Chaparral during period of this con- Hall, ros-Nacionales de 466 Columbia v. addition, Chaparral carried tract. has 408, 8,104 n. 414 n. U.S. advertising during past years ten for (1984) 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (citing Shaffer Bermass, publica- a in Oil trade its service Heitner, U.S. throughout the Permian tion distributed (1977)). In Schlo- Basin, including Texas and Mexi- both bohm, that, the Court stated to establish co. contacts, minimum “foreign corpora frequen- toas When cross-examined purposefully tion must do some or con act present cy Chaparral’s being in Texas of summate some transaction responded: Prather Schlobohm, state.” you Q. Okay. say often did How purposefully The act must be into directed Service, go employees Chaparral Inc. Texas, regardless of the volume. Schlo- into Texas? bohm, activities, 784 S.W.2d at 359. Those varies, a It three to four times A. they direct whether consist of acts within month, sometimes. forum, the forum or outside conduct Q. basically And true has that been justify must conclusion that defen company since the was formed? ever reasonably dant should anticipate No, periods been A. there have called into court there. See World-Wide go we over there for time that wouldn’t 297, 299, 100 Volkswagen, 444 atU.S. months, my I and sure back before am 567, 568; Denckla, see Hanson years. time there was even 235, 250, 252, U.S. you say average an Q. But would you four month three to times a since Prather, manager, Steven company? have been with the ser- they operated testified that oil field average, yes. A. An “hauling water, cleaning company, vice Q. average And so that would tanks, doing] oil and hot well [and [sic] trips per year? to 48 connection work” for drillers roustabout A. Yes. by Business was obtained producers. Q. years you And the ten have over compa- list of getting approval on the company, that’s to 480 been with the they supply To do this would a certif- nies. period? 10-year in that price their of insurance and list for icate A. Yes. prospects. to Contracts services their you say- Q. what are As understand by mailing them then be entered would Service, Chaparral are Inc. em- ing, these company. designated the oil to the office ployees? Produc- example, contracts with Sun For A. Yes. signed by Chaparral Exxon tion and were driving ve- Q. they Texas for And would be mailed to their offices

and then Services, Inc.? Chaparral hicles owned acceptance. A. the instant Chaparral Yes. not Texas, to had authorized do business in no Q. they And would drive them across agent in Texas for service of had the New Mexico-Texas border into the Texas, employees kept no based no State of Texas? no real records Texas owned A. Yes. Texas, Nonetheless, personal property in We conclude that the record suf- contains Chaparral long entered into term contract ficient evidence establish minimum with Sun work Texas, tacts between thus in west Texas performed work satisfying prong the first of the Schlo- trips to others and made occasional bohm formula. purchase supplies. carried prong The second of the Schlobohm for- protect coverage to its mula on the focuses distinction between working policy while which specific jurisdiction. Prior to countersigned by the insurer Dallas. the Texas Court’s decision policies purchased The insurance prong of the second the due provide continuing protection process provided only that “the cause done or it the event that work was from, of action arise must or be connected be sued in Texas. also should with, such act transaction.” In Schlo- in a dis- publication advertised its services bohm, the Court modified the second This advertisement tributed test, adding may “jurisdiction clearly constitutes the solicitation busi- be exercised if the defendant’s contacts Texas. ness in with continuing systematic.” Texas are and instant case The cause of action the Schlobohm, 784 at See S.W.2d 358. is not connected not arise from and did adopting modification, this it the do with clarify Court’s intention the federal and Rather, allegations of it is based on work. proposition state the cases which stand for negligence gross oc- wrongful death and jurisdiction possible is whether there Therefore, specif- curring in New Mexico. single are numerous between established. jurisdiction ic has not been and defendant. See Schlo- juris- We, however, general conclude bohm, 359; 784 at Helicópteros, S.W.2d see established, grounded on has been diction 414-15, 466 at 104 S.Ct. 1872-73. Sun and the contract between the activities of a defen Where opera- continuing business and its other dant in a are disjointed, forum isolated or Helicopteros, 466 U.S. in Texas. tions See jurisdiction proper if is the cause of action sum, 409, these at 104 at 1869. In S.Ct. particular activity. arises from a In these jurisdiction as evi support general factors cases, jurisdiction specific. is to be said “prior negotiations and contem dence of 8, 104 Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 414 n. S.Ct. Moreover, plated consequences.” future 8; Schlobohm, at 1872 n. 784 at contract be expressed terms of the hand, 357. On the other where the defen provide that Tex and tween Sun dant’s activities in forum are continu jurisdiction over liti as courts would have ing systematic, jurisdiction may and gation resulting the execution proper relationship a without King Corp. v. Burger Rud contract. See particular defendant’s act and cause 478, 480, 462, 105 zewicz, 471 S.Ct. U.S. cases, jurisdiction action. In these is said (1985); 2174, 2186, 528 McGee v. 85 L.Ed.2d general. Schlobohm, at to be 220, Ins. 355 U.S. International Co. Life 9, 357; Helicopteros, at 414 n. see 466 U.S. (1957). 223, 2 223 78 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d n. con 104 S.Ct. at 1872 9. The minimum represent that these factors We conclude more inquiry tacts is broader and demand continuing systematic jurisdiction alleged, is ing general Texas. requiring showing substantial activi the Schlo- The third 784 ties the forum state. ques- equitable formula focuses bohm S.W.2d at 357. regarding judgment the trial court is re- tions exercise of The corporation. Schlobohm, foreign proceedings over a versed and remanded Exercising opinion. 359. 784 S.W.2d at sistent with this must not offend traditional notions of fair justice. substantial

play and Interna OVARD, J., dissenting opinion. with v. Washington, tional Shoe Co. 326 U.S. OYARD, Justice, dissenting. 310, 316, 320, 158, 154, 160, (1945). Along view, L.Ed. with the fairness respectfully my dissent. standard, the forum state’s interest must to establish the continuous record fails be considered. Volkswagen World-Wide required by Due systematic activity Woodson, 292, Corp. U.S. Fourteenth Amend- Process Clause (1980). The Constitution as ment of the United States great providing state has a interest Helicopteros Nacionales de enunciated forum for relat its citizens where the costs Columbia, S.A., Hall, 466 U.S.

ing production of evidence and witnesses McGee, are at considered. 355 U.S. made States Court United at The state also has an interest 201. subject to a defendant is not clear that a providing a convenient forum which general jurisdiction absent continu- state’s involving disputes its citizens can be re systematic ous and contacts between McGee, solved. See defendant and the forum state. In Heli- S.Ct. at 201. found that no cópteros, the Court though jurisdiction existed in even

In the instant we conclude Helicópteros created several contacts with that the exercise of over Cha than Helicópteros purchased more parral would not offend the traditional no helicopters, parts, million worth $4 justice. tions in Texas between 1970 cause, accessories There are two defendants in this years, pilots During the same sent The decedent lost his training plant, Fort where to a Worth performing life the con while work under Heli- helicopters manufactured. the were Chaparral. tract While management and mainte- cópteros also sent Chaparral foreign corporation primari is a training personnel nance to Fort Worth ly operating hiring in New Mexicoand New Helicópteros received and consultation. residents, Mexico its contract with Sun was The payments drawn on a Houston bank. broad and substantial. This contract basi not satisfied. It ruled Court was cally provided an needed for work on “as that contacts more substantial without Lujan allowing The basis.” convenience not exer- present, Texas could than those bring single against to suit Sun and Cha Helicopteros, 466 general jurisdiction. cise impor parral jointly in a Texas court is an In our at 1870. Chaparral tant factor. We conclude that Chaparral fewer maintained reasonably anticipate and indeed did could Helicópteros. Texas than had brought Texas court to de before a stemming from its litigation fend itself in additional addressed Helicópteros exercising We find that contract with Sun. might support which, present, if factors in Texas would over include: autho- jurisdiction. Those factors not offend traditional notions Texas, ap- in the rization business to do justice. and substantial agent pro- service of pointment Texas, in solicitation of business cess in Texas, records in Tex- employees the based prongs all three We hold that in as, personal property located formula have been satisfied. real Schlobohm Texas, signing a contract in Texas. Id. juris- supports the exercise The record of those factors are that most by Texas courts over We note diction case with the fol- point equally absent from our Accordingly, Lujan’s sustain sole we Chaparral advertised lowing exceptions: of error. Hobbs, Mexico, publication reaching parts payment Texas and it New bought policies that were coun- made to Mexico. Based tersigned by facts, an insurer in Dallas. As in on these no system- continuous and Helicópteros, Chaparral was not autho- contact atic minimum because of occurred Texas, rized to do business in did not have this contract. agent in Texas for service point that makes this One case distin- Texas, kept had no based no guishable Helicópteros is that Cha- Texas, no real or records and owned parral through solicited in Texas business only personal property in Texas. The placed publication advertisements in a in- tinuous contact would be based the was distributed in New Mexico Texas. policies surance and the contract with Sun advertisements testified the Texas, under which no work directed to outside the Per- were customers performed. work had been The insurance area, mian Basin such as northern New policies purchased protect Chapar- were Mexico. This solicitation of when In ral. the event work were ever done coupled with the fact that never Texas, policies would be considered con- received business Texas from this However, only tinuous. transaction or advertisement, is insufficient signing act that occurred was the of those Texas. policies single, solitary event. One —a coverage could consider to be continu- only The other contact with Texas was ous, policies only into effect but the went during trips the work done short to west Texas, an'employee which was trips Helicópteros, As in were Therefore, contacts, any, if sporadic. rather, they systematic, not but were dis- systematic. neither continuous nor were jointed sporadic. Helicópteros, light of the contacts in Heli- per- pilots, management and maintenance insufficient to cópteros which were held trips made several to Fort Worth. sonnel jurisdiction, the based on warrant trips those were a The Court held that policy subject not Cha- the insurance will package total which constituted the parral in Texas. helicopters. Helicopteros, purchase of the 104 S.Ct. at 1874. The conceivably contract with Sun could trips by Chaparral made into Texas be considered' a sufficient minimum con- However, The record re tact. a contract with an out-of- on án “as needed” basis. itself, not, years party establish flects that several months or would state does trips in- go by sufficient minimum contacts with the between some visits. Since juris- planned forum to allow the exercise of a normal routine was state were not Rudzewicz, Corp. Burger King diction. not followed for systematic con 471 U.S. considered cannot be (1985). Several other factors forum state. Since none tacts with the L.Ed.2d “prior negotiations and contem- meager such as with Texas the various along continuous, plated consequences, with the future systematic and parties’ of the contract and the actu- terms lie over jurisdiction cannot dealing” considered. al course of must be majority admits the lack Texas. The Id.; see also McGee v. International should be specific jurisdiction. The case Life Co., Ins. dismissed. (1957). McGee, upheld where a suit “was based on a had substantial contract which connection” forum state. Id. at

with the Here, ever done in no work was contract, pursuant although to this open possibility that left

the contract done the future.

some work could be negotiated in signed and

Case Details

Case Name: Lujan v. Sun Exploration & Production Co.

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas

Date Published: Oct 2, 1990

Citation: 798 S.W.2d 828

Docket Number: 05-89-01448-CV

Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.