Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:MHI Leasco leaded the Le Meridien Hotel in Dallas from LaSalle. Meridien Hotels Inc. operated the hotel. LaSalle had an option to purchase the leasehold interest should the hotel’s ownership be transferred. Nomura bought a number of Meridien properties, and after a series of extensions, LaSalle decided to purchase the leasehold interest. The parties disagreed, however, over what the fair market value of that interest was. Eventually, Meridien Hotels and Leasco sued LaSalle. LaSalle filed counterclaims, and in its answer to the plaintiffs’ petition, LaSalle joined LMHR, Nomura, Juergen Bartels and MSA as counterdefendants. LMHR is a British company, headquartered in London. Nomura is a European subsidiary of a Japanese company. Bartels is a German citizen living in London. And MSA is a French company, headquartered in Paris. LaSalle alleged that LMHR directs and controls Meridien Hotels Inc.; that Nomura is a “superparent” of Meridien Hotels Inc. and Leasco, but does not control their day-to-day operations; that Bartels was LMHR’s CEO and had traveled to Dallas to observe the management of the hotel; that MSA, as an affiliate of Meridien Hotels Inc. and Leasco, owned several trademarks, including the “Meridien” name, used at the hotel; that LMHR, Bartels and MSA were heavily involved in the hotel’s day-to-day operations; and that all the named parties were either conspiring against LaSalle or abetted in the conspiracy. Each counterdefendant filed a special appearance. Their affidavits denied that they or their alter egos had contacts with Texas sufficient to support jurisdiction. At the hearing on the special appearance, LaSalle contested the counterdefendants’ arguments, arguing, among other things, that Bartels had visited the hotel one day in 2002, when he gave a motivational speech, conducted an interview and generally inspected the condition of the hotel. LaSalle also noted that Bartels had been contacted by a regional manager to discuss replacing the hotel’s general manager. MSA’s legal director was said to have attended a meeting where this litigation was discussed. Further assertions about Meridien Hotels Inc., Leasco and the corporate and individual counterdefendants were made. The trial court denied all of the special appearances without making findings of fact or conclusions of law. The counterdefendants — LMHR, MSA, Bartels and Nomura — appeal. On appeal, LaSalle claims: (1) Texas courts have specific jurisdiction over all counterdefendants because they committed a tort “directed at” this forum; and (2) Texas courts have general jurisdiction over the three corporate counterdefendants because they are actually the alter egos of original defendants Meridien Hotels Inc. and Leasco. HOLDING:Reversed and rendered. The court reviews the contacts each counterdefendant had with the litigations at hand, starting with Bartels. The court finds nothing to contradict Bartels’ assertion that the actions he undertook in Dallas the day he visited in 2002 were the same he would conduct at any Meridien hotel property he visited, and that his visit was wholly unrelated to the underlying lease dispute. Though LMHR may have directed Leasco’s litigation conduct, the court finds that it cannot equate one parent company’s oversight of existing litigation against its subsidiary with that parent company’s involvement in the substance of the litigation. As for MSA, there was not specific jurisdiction because there was no evidence to support LaSalle’s contention that MSA filed trademark litigation in New York just to divert attention away from the Texas litigation. Finally, Nomura had no management authority over Meridien entities, even though he had financial interest in them. The court also rejects the alter ego theory advanced by LaSalle. While all of the counterdefendants are interrelated in some way, “the mere existence of a parent-subsidiary relationship will not justify the disregard of the corporate fiction and exercise of jurisdiction over the nonresident parent.” Because none of the counterdefendants have sufficient minimum contacts with Texas indicating that have “done business” here within the meaning of the long-arm statute, the court reversed the trial court and renders judgment dismissing LaSalle’s counterclaims against the counterdefendants. OPINION:Kerry FitzGerald, J.; Moseley, FitzGerald and Lang, JJ.

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

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* 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?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


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 © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.