X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The Ramirez family sued Cornet, a California company that makes a portable radio, after two family members were injured in a house fire allegedly caused by a defective Cornet radio. The corporation did not contest jurisdiction. The corporation’s assets were sold soon thereafter. The Ramirez family then added Morad and Nadereh Hariri, Cornet’s sole shareholders, as defendants. The Hariris filed a special appearance to contest personal jurisdiction. The trial court granted the Hariris’ special appearance, finding they were not, and have never been, residents of Texas; they were not required to maintain and do not maintain registered agents for service in Texas; they do not engage, and have not engaged in business in Texas; and they have not committed any tort in Texas. Also, in response to the Ramirez family’s assertion that because Cornet cannot pay a judgment, the company is undercapitalized and jurisdiction may be extended over the Hariris themselves, the trial court found that Cornet was not undercapitalized. The trial court noted that at the time of the fire, Cornet had assets greater than $250,000, it maintained liability insurance, and it had a positive net equity at the time the company’s assets were sold. HOLDING:Affirmed. The court agrees that because there is not an individual basis for exercising jurisdiction over the Hariris, the only means of asserting personal jurisdiction is through the imputation of Cornet’s contacts onto the Hariris. Though the parties argue over whether capitalization of a corporation should be measured at the time of injury or at the time suit is filed, the court says it will not reach the issue in this case. Instead, the court focuses on the fact that the only argument the Ramirez family has given in support of piercing the corporate veil in this case is undercapitalization. The court rules that undercapitalization, by itself, is never enough to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the company’s shareholders. The court disagrees with the Ramirez family’s argument that two cases � Torresgrossa v. Szelc, 604 S.W.2d 803 (Tex. 1980), and Tigrett v. Pointer, 580 S.W.2d 375 (Tex.Civ.App. � Dallas 1978, writ ref’d n.r.e.) � and a footnote in Castleberry v. Branscum, 721 S.W.2d 270 (Tex. 1986), stand for an opposite conclusion. The court concludes that those sources only held that inadequate capitalization of a corporation is one factor to be considered in piercing the corporate veil. OPINION:Moseley, J.; Moseley, Francis and Mazzant, 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?

 
 

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.