Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Morris Polich & Purdy LLP, a law firm, filed suit in Nevada state court against various corporate defendants and Irving D. Boyes, individually, to recover attorney’s fees incurred by the firm in representing the defendants in an unrelated lawsuit. The Nevada trial court entered a post-appearance and answer default judgment against all the defendants after striking the defendants’ answers. The firm then filed a notice of filing of foreign judgment in district court in Dallas County, Texas for the purpose of domestication of the judgment in compliance with Chapter 35 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code. Boyes filed a motion for new trial and motion to stay execution of the judgment solely on the grounds that the Nevada court lacked jurisdiction over him on the basis of insufficient minimum contacts. The motion for new trial was denied by the trial court without specifying the grounds, and Boyes filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s judgment. HOLDING:The court affirms the trial court’s denial of the motion for new trial and the stay of execution. On appeal, Boyes challenges the Dallas trial court’s failure to grant a motion for new trial, because he argues that the Nevada court lacked jurisdiction over him. The three requirements that must be shown by the movant in order to obtain a new trial are found in the case of Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, 134 Tex. 388, 133 S.W.2d 124, 126 (1939): 1. the failure of the defendant to answer before judgment was not intentional, or the result of conscious indifference on his part, but was due to a mistake or an accident, 2. provided the motion for new trial sets up a meritorious defense, and 3. is filed at a time when the granting thereof will occasion no delay or otherwise work an injury to the plaintiff. Because Boyes has not addressed the basis for the striking of his answer and the entry of the default, the court looks to the second prong to determine whether he has presented a meritorious defense to the judgment. The court examines Boyes’ claim of a lack of jurisdiction by the Nevada trial court to determine whether the Nevada court’s judgment properly established jurisdiction over him. The court is not presented with any underlying evidence in support of any of the factual allegations of jurisdiction and must look only to the record on appeal. The judgment on its face reflects that Boyes had appeared before the Nevada trial court and answered. The record does not reflect the reason that the answer was struck, but the court holds that the fact that an answer on behalf of Boyes was filed and later struck is sufficient to establish that he was subject to the personal jurisdiction of the Nevada court. The court holds that the denial of Boyes’ original jurisdictional challenge by the Nevada court, and his apparent lack of appeal of that ruling, resulted in the establishment of personal jurisdiction over him. The remaining issues raised by Boyes are that he lacked minimum contacts with Nevada to establish jurisdiction and that an affidavit filed by the law firm’s Texas attorney, which provided the court with a copy of Boyes’ Nevada court answer, was invalid. The court holds that the record is sufficient to establish minimum contacts submitting Boyes to the jurisdiction of the Nevada court. In support of its decision, the court points out that included in the appellate record is a copy of the contract signed by Boyes agreeing to retain the law firm to provide legal services in connection with litigation occurring in Nevada. The court holds that the agreement meets the threshold requirement of the minimum contacts for specific jurisdiction. The court also notes that the agreement as signed by Boyes contains a forum selection clause establishing jurisdiction in Nevada for any dispute arising out of the payments due under agreement. The court holds that the agreement with the forum selection clause, in light of virtually no evidence challenging its validity, is sufficient to comply with due process. OPINION:Barajas, C.J; Barajas, C.J., McClure, and Chew, 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.