Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:A.C.S. Wright appeals the denial of his special appearance in a suit brought against him by the appellees, Sage Engineering Inc., John S. Templeton III and Ronald L. Boggess. Wright filed a special appearance asserting that he was not amenable to process issued by a Texas court. Wright argued that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over him because 1. appellees failed to serve him through the Hague Convention; 2. Wright lacked the requisite minimum contacts with Texas to satisfy the requirements of due process; and 3. the trial court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over him does not comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The trial court denied Wright’s special appearance. HOLDING:Affirmed. Applying the principles enunciated in Kawasaki Steel Corp. v. Middleton, 699 S.W.2d 199 (Tex. 1985), the court concludes that it was not appropriate for Wright to assert his complaint regarding defective service of process in his special appearance. A complaint regarding a curable defect in service of process, such as the one raised by Wright, does not defeat a nonresident’s amenability to the court’s process; thus, it should not be brought via a special appearance. Rather, a motion to quash is the appropriate procedural device to raise such objection. The appellees alleged in their original petition — the live pleading at the time the trial court decided the special appearance — that Wright committed tortious acts in Texas. The court concludes that the appellees met their burden of pleading sufficient jurisdictional allegations to bring Wright within the specific personal jurisdiction of the trial court. Because the appellees met their initial burden, Wright was required to negate all possible grounds for personal jurisdiction. The causes of action asserted by the appellees against Wright individually, which are based on Wright’s alleged misrepresentations, are claims for which Wright could be held individually liable. Therefore, the fiduciary shield doctrine is not available to Wright as a defense to the trial court’s exercise of specific personal jurisdiction based on his alleged misrepresentations. The court concludes that, by invoking the fiduciary shield doctrine, Wright has not satisfied his burden of negating the assertion of personal jurisdiction based on specific jurisdiction. That Wright is alleged to have committed a tort in Texas is not dispositive of the jurisdictional issue presented here; such allegations alone do not give Texas courts jurisdiction over a nonresident. Rather, there must be a substantial connection between the contact and the cause of action in the forum state. The court concludes that Wright’s alleged misrepresentations constitute sufficient purposeful minimum contacts with Texas to satisfy due process considerations. Undoubtedly, litigation away from home creates hardship for a defendant; however, there is no legal requirement that this hardship must be borne instead by the plaintiff whenever the defendant is not found in the state of the plaintiff’s residence. The court concludes that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Wright in this case comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. OPINION:Higley, J.; Taft, Hanks and Higley, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.