NO. 08-21-00135-CV 

IN THE EIGHTH COURT OF APPEALS 

EL PASO, TEXAS 

OSVALDO RODRIGUEZ BORUNDA AND 

EDITORA PASO DEL NORTE, S.A. DE C.V. 

Appellants 

 

v. 

FREE AND SOVEREIGN STATE OF CHIHUAHUA 

Appellee 

ON APPEAL FROM THE 448TH DISTRICT COURT 

EL PASO COUNTY, 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-CV

 FILED IN 8th COURT OF APPEALS EL PASO, TEXAS 11/2/2021 1:41:02 PM ELIZABETH G. FLORES Clerk
ii 

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 ............................................................................................................. 16

 
iii 

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 

Cases 

Am. Type Culture Collection, 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. Ct. 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.—Fort 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, 11 
iv 

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 Procedure § 1067.5 (3d ed. 2002) ......................................... 8 

Record References 

 The following record references will be used in Appellants’ Reply 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 action at all) and has 

changed its identification of the Appellant that allegedly received bribes and/or 

excessive payments for advertising from El Diario to Editora, the Mexican entity 

that it actually sued. 

In its First Amended Petition, Appellee alleges that the State made illegal and 

improper payments to Appellant Mr. Borunda “and his newspaper” El Diario de El 

Paso. CR 340. 

The alleged purpose for the payments was so that El Diario would write 

flattering stories about the then 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 allegations 

against Appellants: 

Further, Mr. Duarte sent tens (if not hundreds) of millions of 

dollars to his confederate Defendant Osvaldo Rodriguez Borunda and 

his newspaper El Diario de El Paso. The amounts paid to Mr. Borunda 

and his newspaper were not authorized, not approved, and far exceed 

any reasonable amount that should be paid to a newspaper and its owner 

– even for an improper purpose. As such, these hyper-inflated amounts 
2 

were nothing more than bribes and a way to commit further graft

against the State of Chihuahua. More specifically, Mr. Duarte was 

illegally and improperly sending state money to Mr. Borunda and El 

Diario to report negatively on Mr. Duarte’s political adversaries and 

positively about Mr. Duarte and his administration. Mr. Duarte was also 

paying money to Mr. Borunda and El Diario for services that were 

never rendered, overpaying for services 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 were sent 

to Mr. Borunda and his newspaper for illegal and improper purposes. 

These money transfers were illegal and improper and part of a scheme 

to defraud the people of Chihuahua for the benefit of Mr. Duarte. 

Further, Mr. Borunda and the El Diario de El Paso knew that these 

hundreds of millions of dollars were public funds and that they were 

being misappropriated, but demanded them anyway. It has been widely 

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 government 

spent on infrastructure over that time period. Indeed, once a new 

governor was elected, Mr. Borunda and the El Diario de El Paso began 

pressuring him for similar payoffs with the threat of bad and false 

articles should he not comply their 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 entirely 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 Appellee. All of 

Appellee’s claims related to advertising and articles, which would have been 

performed by El Diario de Juarez. 

In Appellee’s Brief, at page 9, Appellee, for the first time, alleges that the 

payments were made to Editora and not to El Diario, with no underlying pleading to 
3 

support the same. 

Appellee, again, without any supporting pleading or jurisdictional 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 used in the trial court and in this appeal. 

Michael Eddington, one of Appellee’s counsel, executed a Declaration which 

states that Exhibit 3 of the Appendix to Appellee’s Brief was from Editora Paso Del 

Norte’s website. CR 518-521. That is incorrect. A cursory review of Exhibit 3 

would show that it is actually from Paso Del Norte Publishing, Inc. – a separate 

Texas entity which happens to publish El Diario de El Paso and which derived zero 

income from the advertising provided to Appellee in Mexico. Paso Del Norte 

Publishing also did not write, print or publish any of the articles 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 payments made for the illegal advertising. However, 

the bank records reflect payments to Publicaciones E Impresos Paso Del Norte S. de 

R.L. de C.V. (El Diario de Juarez), a Mexican company which is not a party to this 
4 

lawsuit. Not a single payment is reflected as having been made to Editora. 

Also attached to Appellee’s Brief as Exhibit 4 are invoices from Publicaciones 

E Impresos Paso Del Norte S. de R.L. de C.V. to the State of Chihuahua. CR 524-

558. The invoices are not from either El Diario de El Paso or Editora. 

Exhibit 5 of the Appendix to Appellee’s Brief is a 2016 interview with Mr. 

Borunda wherein he talks about his newspaper, El Diario. CR 559-567. Editora is 

not mentioned. 

Exhibit 7 of the Appendix to Appellee’s Brief is similarly an interview 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 long-arm statute must 

authorize the exercise of jurisdiction 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 “does 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 activities that constitute “doing business” in Texas: 

a. Contracting with a Texas resident when either party is to perform 

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 proffered any 

evidence to the contrary. 

 The “doing business” requirement is also limited by the requirements 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 defendant could reasonably anticipate being sued there. 

Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475-476, 105 S. Ct. 2174, 2183-84, 85 L. 

Ed. 2d 528 (1985). Second, if the nonresident defendant has purposefully established 

minimum contacts, the exercise of personal jurisdiction must comport 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 by permitting 

a state to exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only when the defendant 

"could reasonably anticipate being 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 with the State are so 

'continuous and systematic' as to render [it] essentially at home 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)). This test requires "substantial 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 activities 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 which is attached the 

Appendix filed concurrently herewith at Tab A, specifically CR 440-442, which 

Affidavit makes it clear that Appellee has not met any of the jurisdictional 

requirements as it applies to Editora. It is clear why. Appellee has sued the wrong 

entity. 

 In recent years, based on the due process requirements, the U.S. Supreme 

Court has limited general jurisdiction such that there is no general jurisdiction over 

Editora in this case. 

 In the Daimler case, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014), the Supreme Court held that a 

company cannot be subjected to foreign jurisdiction because an affiliated (but 

distinct) company would be subjected to jurisdiction, rejecting any argument that a 

corporation may be agents of their 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 may constitute purposeful availment. A defendant may 

not be hauled into a jurisdiction based solely on the unilateral activities of a third 
8 

party. Appellee has not plead any acts by Editora in either Mexico or Texas. 

 By contrast, courts may exercise specific jurisdiction when the defendant's 

forum contacts are "isolated or sporadic," as opposed to "continuous 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 action 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 Editora’s activities took place in Texas. 

 In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 

(2017), the Supreme Court further limited jurisdiction. It limited a state courts ability 

to assert personal jurisdiction to those activities or occurrences 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 California state court, 

alleging that they were injured by BMS’s blood-thinning drug Plavix. The California 

Superior Court held that California courts lacked general jurisdiction over BMS (a 

Delaware Corporation headquartered in New York) but could assert specific 
9 

jurisdiction over all claims, even those claims brought by non-resident Plaintiffs who 

did not purchase Plavix in California and were not injured in California. 

 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 claims were not 

sufficiently related to the following of BMS’s connections to California: (1) BMS’s 

five research and laboratory facilities employing a total of 160 employees in 

California; (2) its state-government advocacy office in Sacramento; and (3) its 

employment of 250 sales representatives in California. The Court explained that 

these activities were not specifically related to the non-resident plaintiffs’ Plavix 

claims because BMS did not develop Plavix in California, did not create a marketing 

strategy for Plavix in California, and did not manufacture, label, 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 insufficient that BMS 

took $900 million from Plavix sales in the state, as none of the non-resident plaintiffs 

alleged that they purchased Plavix in California. 

 Editora undertook no actions in Texas and, therefore, the state courts of Texas 

have no jurisdiction over it. 

 Further, Appellee has not described any action that Mr. Rodriguez undertook 

in Texas. All alleged unlawful activities took place in Mexico. The only possible 
10 

action against Mr. Rodriguez would be in rem claims for assets in Texas derived 

from Appellee’s money assuming that Appellee’s money was actually paid to Mr. 

Rodriguez and transferred to Mexico for which Appellee has provided zero 

evidence. 

 Even when a nonresident has established minimum contacts with a state, due 

process permits the state to assert jurisdiction over the nonresident only if doing so 

comports with "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." 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 availed 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 the forum, rarely will 

the exercise of jurisdiction over the nonresident not comport with 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) the burden on the 

defendant; (2) the interests of the forum in adjudicating the dispute; (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 fundamental substantive social 
11 

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 as the federal government's interest 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 that the presence of some consideration 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 interest in the actions in Mexico complained of by 

Appellee. 

 Fundamentally, "[a] state has an especial interest in exercising 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 opposed to a Texas "resident." 

See, e.g., Moncrief Oil, 414 S.W.3d at 155 ("[T]he allegations that . . . Defendants 

committed a tort in Texas against a resident implicate a serious 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 Texas 
12 

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) ("Because the plaintiff 

is not a California resident, California's legitimate interests in the dispute have 

considerably diminished."). When a cause of action is not connected to Texas and 

none of the parties are Texas residents, 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. All 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 Mexico, where every 

complained of transaction took place. 

 Every article was printed and published in Mexico. Every invoice 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 was made in 

Mexico. 

 Texas has absolutely no relationship to or interest in this litigation. 
13 

PRAYER 

 For the above reasons, Appellants respectfully request that this Court reverse 

the Trial Court’s July 9, 2021 Order Overruling Defendants Osvaldo Rodriguez 

Borunda and Editora Paso Del Norte, S.A. de C.V.’s Special Appearance Objecting 

to Jurisdiction in all respects, award recoverable court costs to Appellants, and for 

such other and further relief, both general and special, at law or 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.com 

 
14 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 

 This brief complies with the type-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 III 

 
15 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed with 

the Court via the EFile.TXCourts.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 system. 

/s/ Harrel L. Davis III 

Harrel L. Davis III 

 
16 

APPENDIX 

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 .....................................................................Tab A 

 
17 

TAB A 
El 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} 

440
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} 

441
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) 

442
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