### NO. 08-21-00135-CV IN THE EIGHTH COURT OF APPEALS EL PASO, TEXAS

OSVALDO RODRIGUEZ BORUNDA AND EDITORA PASO DEL NO RTE, S.A. DE C.V. Appellants

v. FREE AND SOVEREIGN STATE OF CHIHUAHUA Appellee

ON APPEAL FROM THE 448 TH

### DISTRICT COURT EL PASO COUN TY, TEXAS

CAUSE NO. 2020DCV0628

APPELLANTS’ REPLY BRIEF Harrel L. Davis III State Bar No. 05567560 Gordon Davis Johnson & Shane, P.C. 4695 N. Mesa, Suite 100 El Paso, Texas 79912 (915) 545-1133 Fax (915) 545-4433 hdavis@eplawyers.com
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED ACCEPTED 08-21-00135-CV EIGHTH COURT OF APPEALS

EL PASO, TEXAS 11/2/2021 1:41 PM ELIZABETH G. FLORES

CLERK 08-21-00135-CVii 

### TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS

.............................................................. ......................... ii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

.............................................................. ................... iii Cases

.............................................................. ................................................ iii Other Authorities

.............................................................. ........................... iv STATEMENT OF FACTS

.............................................................. ........................ 1 ARGUMENT

.............................................................. .............................................. 5 PRAYER

.............................................................. ................................................... 13 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

.............................................................. .... 14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

.............................................................. .............. 15 APPENDIX

.............................................................. ............................................... 16iii 

### INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Cases Am. Type Culture Collec tion, Inc. v. Coleman , 83 S.W.3d 801, 806 (Tex. 2002) ............................... .............................................. 5 Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court of Cal.,

480 U.S. 102, 114, 107 S. Ct. 1026 , 94 L. Ed. 2d 92 (1987) .... ............................ 12 BMC Software Belg. N.V. v. Marchand,

83 S.W.3d 789, 795, 797 (Tex. 2002) ........................... ...................................... 5, 6 Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court , __ U.S. __, 137 S. C t. 1773 (2017) ........................... .............................................. 8 Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz , 471 U.S. 462, 475- 476 (1985). ................................ ................................................ 6 Daimler AG v. Bauman , 571 U.S. 117, 122; 134 S. Ct. 746, 754 (2014) ................ ................................... 6, 7 Guardian Royal Exch. Assurance, Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.C. , 815 S.W.2d 223, 229 , 231 (Tex. 1991) ......................... ........................................ 11 Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington , 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) ..................................... ................................................. 10 Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc. , 465 U.S. 770, 776 (1984) ..................................... ................................................. 11 Michel v. Rocket Eng'g Corp. , 45 S.W.3d 658, 683 (Tex. App.—F ort Worth 2001, no pet.) ...... ......................... 12 Michiana East Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten , 168 S.W.3d 777, 785 (Tex. 2005) .............................. ............................................. 7 Moncrief Oil Int’l v. OAO Gazprom , 414 S.W.3d 142, 150, 154-155, 158 (Tex. 2013) ................ .................... 6, 8, 10, 11iv 

### Spir Star AG v. Kimich , 310 S.W.3d 868, 872, 878-79 (Tex. 2010) ...................... ............................ 7, 10, 11

Other Authorities Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem . Code Ann . §17.042 ...................... ....................................... 5 4 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller Federal Practice and Proce dure § 1067.5 (3d ed. 2002) ........ ................................. 8

Record References The following record reference s will be used in Appellants’ Re ply Brief: Clerk’s Record.............................. ....................................CR [Page]1 

### STATEMENT OF FACTS It appears from its Brief that Appellee has figured out that it has sued the wrong entity (assuming that Appellee has a valid cause of actio n at all) and has changed its identification of the Appellant that allegedly rece ived bribes and/or excessive payments for advertising from El Diario to Editora, the Mexican entity that it actually sued. In its First Amended Petition, Appe llee alleges that the State made illegal and improper payments to Appellant M r. Borunda “and his newspaper” El Diario de El Paso. CR 340. The alleged purpose for the payments was so that El Diario woul d write flattering stories about the the n governor, Mr. Duarte, and to report negatively about Mr. Duarte’s adversaries. CR 340. In response to the filing of Appellants’ Special Appearance and Rule 91a Motion to Dismiss Baseless Causes of Action, Appellee filed its Second Amended Petition. In that Second Amended Petition, Appellee made the following al legations against Appellants: Further, Mr. Duarte sent tens (if not hundreds) of millions of dollars to his confederate Defe ndant Osvaldo Rodriguez Borunda and his newspaper El Diario de El Pa so. The amounts paid to Mr. Bor unda and his newspaper were not authorized, not approved, and far ex ceed any reasonable amount that should be paid to a newspaper and it s owner – even for an improper purpose. As such, these hyper-inflated amounts2 

### were nothing more than bribes and a way to commit further graft against the State of Chihuahua. More specifically, Mr. Duarte w as illegally and improperly sending st ate money to Mr. Borunda and El Diario to report negatively on Mr. Duarte’s political adversari es and positively about Mr. Duarte and his administration. Mr. Duarte was also paying money to Mr. Borunda and El Diario for services that wer e never rendered, overpaying for se rvices that were rendered, and outright bribing Mr. Borunda and El Diario at times. Such was and is illegal. These monies belonged to the state and its people, but were being used to bribe a newspaper and its owner. These monies wer e sent to Mr. Borunda and his newspaper for illegal and improper purpo ses. These money transfers were illega l and improper and part of a s cheme to defraud the people of Chihuahua for the benefit of Mr. Duart e. Further, Mr. Borunda and the El D iario de El Paso knew that the se hundreds of millions of dollars wer e public funds and that theywere being misappropriated, but demanded them anyway. It has been wi dely reported that more than 600 million pesos were paid to Mr. Borunda and the El Diario de El Paso over five years – more than the go vernment spent on infrastructure over that time period. Indeed, once a n ew governor was elected, Mr. Borunda and the El Diario de El Paso began pressuring him for similar payo ffs with the threat of bad and f alse articles should he not comply th eir demands. [emphasis added] CR 430-431. Publicaciones E Impresos Paso Del Norte S. de R.L. de C.V. (El Diario de Juarez) and Editora Paso Del Norte S.A. de C.V. are two entirel y separate and distinct corporate entities. See Exhibit 1 to the Appendix to Appellee’s Brief. Editora is not mentioned at all in any factual allegations made by Appe llee. All of Appellee’s claims related to advertising and articles, which wo uld have been performed by El Diario de Juarez. In Appellee’s Brief, at page 9, Appellee, for the first time, a lleges that the payments were made to Editora and not to El Diario, with no und erlying pleading to3 

### support the same. Appellee, again, without any suppo rting pleading or jurisdictio nal evidence, asserts that Editora is the advertising and real estate arm of Mr. Borunda’s business without even identifying that business. That is incorrect. Appellee continues to misidentify multiple separate entities into El Diario or Editora in the Exhibits it has us ed in the trial court and in this appeal. Michael Eddington, one of Appellee’s counsel, executed a Declar ation which states that Exhibit 3 of the Appendix to Appellee’s Brief was f rom Editora Paso Del Norte’s website. CR 518-521. That is incorrect. A cursory re view of Exhibit 3 would show that it is actually from Paso Del Norte Publishing, Inc. – a separate Texas entity which happens to publ ish El Diario de El Paso and which derived zero income from the advertising provided to Appellee in Mexico. Pas o Del Norte Publishing also did not write, print or publish any of the arti cles in Mexico about which Appellee complains. Mr. Eddington then declares that he has personal knowledge of the State of Chihuahua bank records which are attached as Exhibit 4 to the Appendix to Appellee’s Brief. CR 518-519, 524-558. Allegedly, these are the payment s made for the illegal advertis ing. However, the bank records reflect payments to Publicaciones E Impresos P aso Del Norte S. de R.L. de C.V. (El Diario de Juarez), a Mexican company which is not a party to this4 

### lawsuit. Not a single payment is reflected as having been made to Editora. Also attached to Appellee’s Brief as Exhibit 4 are invoices fro m Publicaciones E Impresos Paso Del Norte S. de R.L. de C.V. to the State of Ch ihuahua. CR 524- 558. The invoices are not from eith er El Diario de El Paso or Editora. Exhibit 5 of the Appendix to Appellee’s Brief is a 2016 intervi ew with Mr. Borunda wherein he talks about his newspaper, El Diario. CR 55 9-567. Editora is not mentioned. Exhibit 7 of the Appendix to Appellee’s Brief is similarly an i nterview where Editora is not mentioned. CR 574-579.5 

### ARGUMENT Two requirements must be met before a Texas court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. First, the Texas lon g-arm statute must authorize the exercise of jurisd iction and second, the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with federal due process. Am. Type Culture Collection, Inc. v. Coleman , 83 S.W.3d 801, 806 (Tex. 2002). Pursuant to the long-arm statute, Texas can exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant that “doe s business” in Texas. Tex. Civ . Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §17.042; BMC Software Belgium, NV v. Marchand , 83 S.W.3d 789, 795 (Tex. 2002). The statute lists three activ ities that constitute “doing busi ness” in Texas:

a. Contracting with a Texas resident when either party is to perfo rm the contract in whole or in part in Texas; b. Committing a tort in whole or in part in Texas; and

c. Recruiting Texas residents for employment inside or outside of Texas. Editora has done none of those things and Plaintiff has not pr offered any evidence to the contrary. The “doing business” requirement is also limited by the requir ements of federal due process.6 

### With respect to personal jurisdiction, federal due process requires two things. First, the defendant must have purposely established such minimum contacts with the forum state that the defe ndant could reasonably anticipate being sued there. Burger King v. Rudzewicz , 471 U.S. 462, 475-476, 105 S. C t. 2174, 2183-84, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528 (1985). Second, if the nonresident defendant has pur posefully established minimum contacts, the exercise of personal jurisdiction must co mport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Burger King , 471 U.S. at 445- 46. The minimum-contacts requirement protects due-process rights b y permitting a state to exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant o nly when the defendant "could reasonably anticipate bei ng hauled into court there." Moncrief Oil Int'l Inc. v. OAO Gazprom , 414 S.W.3d 142, 158 (Tex. 2013). Minimum contacts may create either general or specific personal jurisdiction. Id . at 150. A court has general jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant whose "affiliations w ith the State are so 'continuous and systematic' as t o render [it] essentially at ho me in the forum State." Daimler AG v. Bauman , 134 S. Ct. 746, 754, 187 L. Ed. 2d 624 (2014) (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown , 564 U.S. 915, 919, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 180 L. Ed. 2d 796 (2011)). Thi s test requires "substantia l activities within the forum" and presents "a more demanding minimum contacts analysis than for specific jurisdiction." BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand , 83 S.W.3d 789, 797 (Tex.7 

### 2002). When a court has general jurisdiction over a nonresident , it may exercise jurisdiction "even if the cause of action did not arise from ac tivities performed in the forum state." Spir Star AG v. Kimich , 310 S.W.3d 868, 872 (Tex. 2010). Oswaldo Rodriguez executed his Affidavit, a true and correct copy of wh ich is attached the Appendix filed concurrently her ewith at Tab A, specifically CR 440-442, which Affidavit makes it clear that Appellee has not met any of the j urisdictional requirements as it applies to Ed itora. It is clear why. Appel lee has sued the wrong entity. In recent years, based on the due process requirements, the U. S. Supreme Court has limited general jurisd iction such that there is no ge neral jurisdiction over Editora in this case. In the Daimler case, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014), th e Supreme Court held that a company cannot be subjected to foreign jurisdiction because an affiliated (but distinct) company would be subjected to jurisdiction, rejectingany argument that a corporation may be agents of t heir affiliates, subsidiaries, parent companies, etc., for jurisdiction purposes. The Texas Supreme Court reached the same conclusion in Michiana East Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten , 168 S.W.3d 777, 785 (Tex. 2005) explaining that only the defendant’s own actions mayconstitute purposeful availment . A defendant may not be hauled into a jurisdictio n based solely on the unilatera l activities of a third8 

### party. Appellee has not plead any acts by Editora in either Me xico or Texas. By contrast, courts may exercise specific jurisdiction when th e defendant's forum contacts are "isolated or s poradic," as opposed to "conti nuous and systematic," but only if the plaintiff's cause of action arises from or relates to those
contacts. Id . at 872-73 (quoting 4 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller , Federal Practice and Procedure § 1067.5 (3d ed. 2002)); see also Moncrief Oil , 414 S.W.3d at 150 ("[S]pecific jurisdiction exists when the cause of actio n arises from or is related to purposeful activities in the state."). For specific jurisdiction, we must analyze the defendant's contacts "on a claim-by-claim basis" to determine whether each claim arises out of or is related to the defendant's minimum contacts. Moncrief Oil , 414 S.W.3d at 150. None of Ed itora’s activities took place inTexas. In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California , 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), the Supreme Court furthe r limited jurisdiction. It limi ted a state courts ability to assert personal jurisdiction to those activities or occurren ces that take place in the forum state and thus subject to the forum states regulation. In Bristol-Myers Squibb , a group of plaintiffs, most of whom were not California residents, sued Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) in Califo rnia state court, alleging that they were injured by BMS’s blood-thinning drug Pl avix. The California Superior Court held that California courts lacked general juris diction over BMS (a Delaware Corporation headquartered in New York) but could assert specific9 

### jurisdiction over all claims, even those claims brought by non- resident Plaintiffs who did not purchase Plavix in California and were not injured in C alifornia. On appeal, the United States Supreme Court reversed, holding that California courts lacked specific jurisdiction over claims brought by the non-resident class members. In other words, the Court held that the non-resident c laims were not sufficiently related to the following of BMS’s connections to C alifornia: (1) BMS’s five research and laboratory f acilities employing a total of 16 0 employees in California; (2) its state-government advocacy office in Sacrame nto; and (3) its employment of 250 sales representatives in California. The Court explained that these activities were not specifi cally related to the non-resid ent plaintiffs’ Plavix claims because BMS did not develop Plavix in California, did no t create a marketing strategy for Plavix in California, and did not manufacture, lab el, package, or work on the regulatory approval of the product in California. All of these activities took place in New York or New Jersey. The Court also found it insuff icient that BMS took $900 million from Plavix sales in the state, as none of th e non-resident plaintiffs alleged that they purchasedPlavix in California. Editora undertook no actions in Texas and, therefore, the stat e courts of Texas have no jurisd iction over it. Further, Appellee has not descr ibed any action that Mr. Rodrig uez undertook in Texas. All alleged unlawful activities took place in Mexico . The only possible10 

### action against Mr. Rodriguez would be in remclaims for assets in Texas derived from Appellee’s money assuming th at Appellee’s money was actual ly paid to Mr. Rodriguez and transferred to Mex ico for which Appellee has prov ided zero evidence. Even when a nonresident has established minimum contacts with a state, due process permits the state to as sert jurisdiction over the nonre sident only if doing so comports with "traditional notions of fair play and substantialjustice." Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington , 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945); Moncrief Oil , 414 S.W.3d at 154. Typically, "[w]hen a nonresident defendant has purposefully ava iled itself of the privilege of conducting business in a foreign jurisdiction, it is both fair and just to subject that defendant to the authority of that forum's courts. " Spir Star , 310 S.W.3d at 872. Thus, "[i]f a nonresident has minimum contacts with theforum, rarely will the exercise of jurisdiction over the nonresident not comport w ith traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Moncrief Oil , 414 S.W.3d at 154-55. The Texas courts consider several factors to evaluate the fairness and justness of exercising jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant: (1) th e burden on the defendant; (2) the interests of the forum in adjudicating the d ispute; (3) the plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief; (4) the international judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies; and (5) the shared interest of the several nations in furthering fundam ental substantive social11 

### policies. Id . at 155. When the defendant is a citizen of a foreign country, and not just another state, we consider more specifically (6) "the unique burdens placed upon the defendant who must defend itself in a foreign legal system;" (7 ) the state's regulatory interests; and (8) "the procedural and substantive policies of other nations whose interests are affected as well a s the federal government's inte rest in its foreign relations policies." Guardian Royal Exch. Assurance, Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.C. , 815 S.W.2d 223, 229 (Tex. 1991. "To defeat jurisdiction, [the defendant] must present 'a compelling case th at the presence of some consi deration would render jurisdiction unreasonable'" Spir Star , 310 S.W.3d at 878-79 (quoting Guardian Royal , 815 S.W.2d at 231). The state of Texas has no intere st in the actions in Mexico co mplained of by Appellee. Fundamentally, "[a] state has an especial interest in exercisi ng judicial jurisdiction over those who commit torts within its territory," Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc. , 465 U.S. 770, 776 (1984), and we have never conditioned that interest on the plaintiff's status as a Texas "citizen," as opp osed to a Texas "resident." See, e.g., Moncrief Oil , 414 S.W.3d at 155 ("[T]he alle gations that . . . Defendants committed a tort in Texas against a resident implicate a seriou s state interest in adjudicating the dispute."); Spir Star , 310 S.W.3d at 879 ("Texas has a significant interest in exercising jurisdiction over controversies arising from injuries a Texas12 

### resident sustains . . . ."); see also Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 480 U.S. 102, 114, 107 S. Ct. 1026, 94 L. Ed. 2d 92 (1987) ("Be cause the plaintiff is not a California resident, California's legitimate interests in the dispute have considerably diminished."). When a cause of action is not conne cted to Texas and none of the parties are Texas resi dents, fairness becomes of paramount importance. Michel v. Rocket Eng'g Corp. , 45 S.W.3d 658, 683 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, no pet.). All of the actions complained of here took place in Mexico. Al l of the witnesses are in Mexico and it is uncertain that they would be able to travel to Texas to testify or would be willing to do so. All of the documents are in Spanish. It would be unfair to all defendants to try this case anywhere but in Me xico, where every complained of transaction took place. Every article was printed and published in Mexico. Every invo ice from Publicaciones E Impresos Paso Del Norte S. de R.L. de C.V. was sent to Appellee in Mexico. Every advertisement was in Mexico. Every payment w as made in Mexico. Texas has absolutely no relations hip to or interest in this li tigation.13 

### PRAYER For the above reasons, Appellant s respectfully request that th is Court reverse the Trial Court’s July 9, 2021 Order Overruling Defendants Osva ldo Rodriguez Borunda and Editora Paso Del Nort e, S.A. de C.V.’s Special Appe arance Objecting to Jurisdiction in all respects, award recoverable court costs to Appellants, and for such other and further relief, both general and special, at lawor in equity, to which Appellants may be justly entitled.

/s/ Harrel L. Davis III Harrel L. Davis III State Bar No. 05567560 Gordon Davis Johnson & Shane, P.C. 4695 N. Mesa, Suite 100 El Paso, Texas 79912 (915) 545-1133 (915) 545-4433 Fax hdavis@eplawyers.com14 

### CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE This brief complies with the t ype-volume limitations of Tex. R . App. P. 9.4(i)(2)(C) because this brief contains 2,798 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i)(1).

/s/ Harrel L. Davis III Harrel L. Davis III15 

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoingwas filed with the Court via the EFile.TXCourt s.gov system on November 2, 2021 . All attorneys identified with the Court for electronic service on record in this case were served by electronic service in accordance with the EFile.TXCourts.gov sy stem.
/s/ Harrel L. Davis III Harrel L. Davis III16 

### APPENDIX Affidavit of Osvaldo Rodrig uez Jimenez in Support of Editora Paso Del Norte, S.A. de C.V.’s and Osvaldo Rodriguez Borunda’s Special Appearance .................................. ...................................Tab A17 

### TAB AEl Paso County

- 448th District Court Filed 4/14/2021 9:03 AM

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS 448TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Norma Favela Barceleau District Clerk El Paso County 2020DCV0628

FREE AND SOVEREIGN STATE OF CHIHUAHUA, § 

### § § § § Plaintiff,



### v. § CAUSE NO. 2020DCV0628 

### § CESAR HORACIO DUARTE JAQUEZ, et al., 

### § § Defendants. §
AFFIDAVIT OF OSVALDO RODRIGUEZ JIMENEZ IN SUPPORT OF EDITORA PASO DEL NORTE, S.A. de C.V.'S and

OSVALDO RODRIGUEZ BORUNDA'S SPECIAL APPEARANCE STATE OF TEXAS ) ) COUNTY OF EL PASO ) Before me, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared Osvaldo Rodriguez Jimenez, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed hereto, who stated under oath as follows:
1. "My name is Osvaldo Rodriguez Jimenez. I am the duly authorized representative of Editora Paso Del Norte, S.A. de C.V. ("Editora"), one of the Defendants in the abovereferenced and styled lawsuit. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this affidavit, which are true and correct, and I am authorized in all respects to make this affidavit and these statements. The statements made herein also apply to the Special Appearance of Osvaldo Rodriguez Borunda ("Mr. Rodriguez"). I am over the age of 18 years and am fully competent to testify to the matters stated herein. 2. "The current governor of Plaintiff is Javier Corral Jurado. He became governor in October 2016. Mr. Corral and Mr. Rodriguez, another one of the Defendants herein and Editora's principal, have had a contentious relationship for a number of years and El Diario de Juarez has published a number of unflattering, but truthful, articles about Mr. Corral starting long before Mr. Corral became governor in October 2016. 3. "Because of those articles, Mr. Corral has, in Mexico, publicly made slanderous claims about El Diario de Juarez and Mr. Rodriguez. El Diario de Juarez filed suit against Mr. Corral in Mexico in February 2020 in order to try to stop those slanderous attacks. In return, in March 2020, Mr. Corral filed a libel lawsuit against El Diario de Juarez, the entity that prints and publishes the Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico newspaper.

{ 1130.153/HDAV/06812335.1}4. "Plaintiff, even after Mr. Corral became governor, continued to request that El Diario de Juarez provide it with advertising services. It did so. However, when the abovereferenced conflicts started to arise, Plaintiff ceased paying for that advertising. That refusal to pay for advertising that Plaintiff had requested caused El Diario de Juarez to file a collection suit against the State of Chihuahua in Mexico in September, 2020. 5. "Mr. Corral then asked the State's attorney to add Editora and Mr. Rodriguez as Defendants in this action. None of the complained of transactions as to these Defendants took place in the United States, and none of the alleged funds were used to purchase property in Texas.
6. "Editora is not a resident of Texas. Editora does not engage in any business in Texas other than hold certain accounts and neither it or Mr. Rodriguez have committed any tort, in whole or in part, within the State of Texas. Certainly, none of the acts complained of by Plaintiff took place or would have taken place in Texas. Editora does not maintain a place of business in Texas and has no employees, servants, or agents within the State of Texas. Editora has no substantial connection with Texas arising from any action or conduct of Editora purposefully directed towards Texas. Editora does not own any real estate in Texas. 7. "Plaintiffs claims do not arise from and are not related to any activity allegedly conducted by Editora or Mr. Rodriguez in Texas. It appears from the First Amended Petition that Plaintiff is complaining that the prior governor provided funds for the purpose of obtaining favorable articles. Neither Editora nor Mr. Rodriguez publish newspapers, much less articles. No funds were ever paid directly to Editora or Mr. Rodriguez by Plaintiff for the publishing of articles. The State of Chihuahua did purchase advertising and legally required notices from El Diario de Juarez, but, again, all of those transactions took place in Mexico. 8. "Editora has not had continuous or systematic contacts with the State of Texas. Plaintiffs alleged cause of action against Editora and Mr. Rodriguez do not arise from any contacts between Editora and Mr. Rodriguez and the State of Texas. Thus, Editora and Mr. Rodriguez had no basis to reasonably anticipate being hauled into court in Texas in regard to either the claims at issue or any other occurrence. The Court's assumption of jurisdiction over Editora or Mr. Rodriguez would clearly offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice denying Editora or Mr. Rodriguez due process oflaw. Mr. Rodriguez is a Mexican citizen. Both he and Editora agree to jurisdiction in Mexico."

{l 130.153/HDAV/06812335.1}Affiant says nothing further.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before e on this, the \ 

## 3 h<y:s. 

## \"°2 , 2021, certify which, witness my hand and seal of office. day of

# ~"fa~-~~ Public in and for The State of Texas

{1130.153/HDAV/06812335.1)

### Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Virginia Rust on behalf of Harrel Davis III Bar No. 5567560 vrust@eplawyers.com Envelope ID: 58771492 Status as of 11/2/2021 4:50 PM MST Associated Case Party: Editora Paso Del Norte, S.A. de C.V.

Name Harrel LDavis III Virginia Rust Cynthia Canales Victoria Pena BarNumber Email hdavis@eplawyers.com vrust@eplawyers.com ccanales@eplawyers.com vpena@eplawyers.com TimestampSubmitted 11/2/2021 1:41:02 PM 11/2/2021 1:41:02 PM 11/2/2021 1:41:02 PM 11/2/2021 1:41:02 PM Status SENT SENT SENT SENT 

### Associated Case Party: Free and Sovereign State of Chihuahua

Name Jessica Salto Caroline Adams Christopher Leavitt Anthony Buzbee BarNumber Email jsalto@txattorneys.com cadams@txattorneys.com cleavitt@txattorneys.com tbuzbee@txattorneys.com TimestampSubmitted 11/2/2021 1:41:02 PM 11/2/2021 1:41:02 PM 11/2/2021 1:41:02 PM 11/2/2021 1:41:02 PM Status SENT SENT SENT SENT



### Case Contacts

Name R. Yetter Matthew Zorn Lisa Prince Bryce Callahan Victor Firth BarNumber Email pyetter@yettercoleman.com mzorn@yettercoleman.com lprince@yettercoleman.com bcallahan@yettercoleman.com vfirth@f-jlaw.com TimestampSubmitted 11/2/2021 1:41:02 PM 11/2/2021 1:41:02 PM 11/2/2021 1:41:02 PM 11/2/2021 1:41:02 PM 11/2/2021 1:41:02 PM Status SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT