1 ... S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 0 2 - 0 8 - 0 6 2 - CV S OUT HW E S T AV I AT I ON S P E C IA L IT IE S , L .L .C . A N D D A V ID C . GU ZM AN , AN I ND I VI DU AL APPE L L AN TS V . W IL M IN G T O N A IRV E N T U R E S IV , I NC . AN D D EL I SA A I RCRA FT M AN AG EM ENT, I NC . APPE L L EE S

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 153RD DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I . I nt r oduc t i on In t h r e e is s u e s , A p p e lla n t s S o u t h w e s tA v ia t io n S p e c ia lt ie s , L L C a n d D a v id C . G u z m a n a p p e a l th e d e n i a l o f th e i r s p e c i a l a p p e a ra n c e s a n d th e e v i d e n ti a ry ru l i n g s th a t th e tri a l c o u rt m a d e i n s u p p o rt o f th a t d e n i a l . W e a ffir m .2 I I . Fa ct ualan d Pr oce dur alBac kgr ound Th i s case i nvol ves a cont r a c t fo r avi at i on- r el at ed goo ds and ser vi ces bet w een S outhw estA vi at i on S peci al i t i es ( “So ut h w e s t”) and A ppel l ees W i l m i ngton A i r V e n tu r es I V , I nc. and D el i sa A i r cr af tM anagem ent , I nc. ( col l ec t i vel y, “ W i l m i ngt on ” ) . W i l m i ngt on s ued Sout hw es tan d Guzm an, S outhw est ’ s gener al m anager , both O kl ahom a r esi dents , f or br each ofcont r act
a n d d e c e p ti v e tr a d e p rac ti c e s, a m o n g o th e r cl a i m s. W i l m i n g to n all e g e d i n i ts
or i gi nal pe t i t i on t hatSout hw es t and G uz m an “a t t em pt ed t o r epa i rs om e o ft he
a v i o n i c s w o rk w h i l e [W i l m i n g to n ’s a i rc ra ft] w a s a t a m a i n te n a n c e fa c i l i tyi n F o rt W ort h, Texas, know n as PhazarFl i ght S upp ort . ” Southw estand G uzm an each f i l ed sp ec i al ap pea r anc es , w hi ch t he t r i al co urtde ni ed. I I I . Sp eci alA ppear ances In th e i r fi rs t i s s u e , S o u th w e s t a n d G u z m a n c o m p l a i n th a t th e tri a l c o u rt
e r r e d w h e n itd e n ie d t h e ir s p e c ia l a p p e a r a n c e s , c la im in g t h a t t h e yn e g a t e d a ll bases f orper sonal j ur i sdi ct i on, speci f i c and gener al . I n t hei rsecond i ssue, t hey
a rgu e tha t t h e tr i a l co u rterred w h e n i t ov e r r u le d th e i r ob j e c ti o n s to W ilm in g t o n ’s a f f id a v it s in o p p o s it io n t o t h e s p e c ia l a p p e a r a n c e s . A n d in t h e ir t h ir d is s u e , S o u t h w e s ta n d G u z m a n c o m p la in t h a t t h e t r ia l c o u rt e r r e d w h e n it “d ee m ed adm i t t ed”t hei robj ec t i ons an d r es pons es to W i l m i ngt on’ s se con d
r equestf oradm i ssi ons.3

Th e t r i al court ’s or derdenyi ng S outhw est ’ s and G uzm an’ s speci al appear ances not e d th a t i tgr ant ed al l part i es f urt hert i m e t o f i l e addi t i onal pl ea di ngs an d t hat , aft ernot i ce t o a l l pa rti es“ and upon co ns i der i ng t he D ef end ant s’ Sp ec i al A ppe ar anc es , t he r es pons e, t he evi den ce , t he pl ea di ngs and t h e a r g u me n t s o fc o u n s e l , t h e Co u rti so ft h e o p i n i o n t h a tDe f e n d a n t s’ Speci al A ppe ar anc ess houl d be den i ed. ” The r ec or d a l so i ncl ude s a l et t erf r om th e tr i a l c o u rt to th e p a rt i e s, d a ted the sa m e d a yas the o rde r an d en c l o se d w i th t he or der , st at i ng, “The D ef endan t s’ obj ect i ons t o t he Pl ai nt i f f s’ Sp eci al A ppear ance evi dence ar e each deni ed. ” A . Standar d ofRev i ew W het hera t r i al courthas per sonal j ur i sdi ct i on ov era def endan ti s a q u e s ti o n o f l a w re v i e w e d d e n o v o . BM CSoft ware Bel g. , N. V. v. Marchand, 83 S .W .3 d 7 8 9 , 7 9 3

– 9 4 (T e x . 2 0 0 2 ); Trave lJun gle v. A m . A i r l i nes, I nc. , 212 S . W . 3 d 8 4 1 , 8 4 5 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 6 , n o p e t.); SI TQ E. U. , Inc. v. Reata Rests. , I

nc. , 1 1 1 S .W .3 d 6 3 8 , 6 4 4 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 2 0 0 3 , p e t. den i ed) . The pl ai nt i f f bea r s t he i ni t i al bur den ofpl ea di ng s uf f i ci ental l ega t i ons to b ri n g a n o n re s i d e n t d e fe n d a n t w i th i n th e p ro v i s i o n s o f th e T e x a s l o n g -a rm s ta tu te . BM CSo ftwa re , 8 3 S .W .3 d a t 7 9 3 ; T ra velJungle , 212 S. W . 3d a t845; Re a ta , 1 1 1 S .W .3 d at 6 4 4 . W i l m i n g to n m e t i ts i n i ti a l b u rde n b yas se rt i n g i n i ts
o r ig in a l p e t it io n t h a t S o u t h w e s t a n d G u z m a n , O k la h o m a re s id e n t s , “ e n g a g e d in2 ... W ilm in g t o n r e s p o n d s t h a tS o u t h w e s ta n d G u z m a n h a v e w a iv e d t h is

al l eged er r orbecause t he t r i al cour t m ade no r ul i ngs and di d not ent er any or der w i th reg a rd to the “d e e m e d a d m i ss i o n s.” H o w e v e r, w h e n res p o n se s to r equest s f ora d m is s ions ar e nott i m el y ser ved, t he r equest s ar e consi der ed a d m i tte d w i th o u t th e n e c e s s i tyo f a c o u r t o rd e r. T e x . R . C i v . P . 1 9 8 .2 (c ). T h e refo re, co n tr a ry to W i lm in g to n ’s p o sit i o n , th e tr i a l co u rtd i d n o t ha v e to m a k e a ru l i n g o r e n te r a n o rd e r w i th re g a rd to th e a l l e g e d “ d e e m e d a d m i s s i o n s .” 4 b u s in e s s in T e x a s , a c o n t r a c tm a d e t h e b a s is o ft h is d is p u t e w a s p e r f o r m e d , in p a rt, i n T e x a s , a n d th e D e fe n d a n ts e n g a g e d i n o th e r w ro n g fu l a c ts i n T e x a s .” S eeTex. Ci v. Pr ac . & Rem . Code Ann. § 17. 042 ( V er non 200 8) . A nonr es i den t def endan tchal l engi ng a T exas court ’ s per sonal j u ris d ict i on ov eri tm ustt hen
n e g a te a l l ju r i s d i c ti o n a l b a s e s . BM CS o ftwa re , 83 S . W . 3d a t793; T ra velJungle , 2 1 2 S .W .3 d a t 8 4 5 ; Re a ta , 1 1 1 S .W .3 d a t 6 4 4

– 4 5 . B. D ee m ed A dm i ss i ons S o u th w e st a n d G u zm a n clai m tha t t h e i r ob j e c ti o n s a n d res p o n se s to W i l m i n g ton’ s se con d s etofr equ es t s f orad m i ss i ons w er e t i m el y f i l ed on D e c e m b e r2 8 , 2 0 0 7 , b e c a u s e t h e yw e r e “ a c t u a l l y s e r v e d ” o rt h e y“ a c t u a lly
r e c e i ve d”W i l m i ng t on ’ s s e c on d s e t of r e qu e s t s f ora dm i s s i on s o n Nov e m be r29, 200 7. Thus , t heyar gue , t he t r i al c o u rt s houl d notha ve “d ee m ed adm i t t ed” W i l m i ngton’ s r equest s f oradm i ssi ons. 2 Rul e 198. 2( a) oft he r ul esofci vi l pr oce dur e r equ i r est hata r es p o n d i ng part y m us ts erve a w ri t t en r es pons e t o r equ es t s f orad m i ss i ons on t he5

r equest i ng par t y “w i t hi n 3 0 d ays after service oft he r equ es t . ” Tex. R. Ci v. P. 1 9 8 .2 (a ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). S e r v ic e o f r e q u e s t s f o ra d m is s io n s f a lls u n d e rru le 2 1 a . T e x . R . C i v . P . 2 1 a ; Etheredg e v. Hi dden Val

ley A i r par k Ass ’ n, I nc . , 169 S. W . 3d 378, 381– 83 ( Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h 2005 , p et . de ni ed) ( op. on
r eh’ g) . R u l e 2 1 a p r o v i d e s t h a ts e r v i c e b yc e rt i f i e d ma i l i s c o mp l e t e u pon d e p o s i t o f th e d o c u m e n t, e n c l o s e d i n a p o s tp a i d , p ro p e rl ya d d re s s e d w ra p p e r, i n a postof f i ce or of f i ci al depo si t or y und ert he car e and cust ody o ft he U ni t ed S ta te s P o s ta l S e rv i c e . T e x . R . C i v . P . 2 1 a ; W heeler v. Green , 157 S. W . 3d 439, 4 4 1 ( T e x . 2 0 0 5 ) (ex p l a i n i n g tha t th e “m a i l b o xrul e ,” rul e 2 1 a , d e e m s re q u e sts fo r a d m i s s i o n s s e rv e d w h e n m a i l e d b yc e rti fi e d m a i l , n o t w h e n re c e i v e d ); see al so 2 D a v i d E . K e l tn e r, Texa sPra c tic eG ui de : D i s c o very , § 7: 34 ( 200 8) ( “The t i m e f orr es pons e b egi ns t i ck i ng on t he dat e r equ es t s ar e m ai l ed ( noton t he dat e of t hei r r ecei pt ) . ”) . R ul e 21 a al so pr ovi des t hat“[ w ] henever a part y has t he r i ghtori s re q u i re d t o do so m e a ctw i t hi n a pr es cr i bed pe r i od a f t ert he
ser vi ce ofa not i ce orot herpaperupo n h i m and t he noti ce orpaperi s served upon by m ai l . . . , t hr ee da ys s hal l be ad ded t o t he pr es cr i bed pe r i od. ” Tex. R. Ci v. P. 21a. Ther ef or e, So u th w e s t h a d t hi rt y- t hr ee da ys f r om t he dat e o f
serviceto re s p o n d to W i l m i n g to n ’s s e c o n d s e t o f re q u e s ts fo r a d m i s s i o n s . W i l m i ngton’ s second setofr equest s f oradm i ssi ons w as sent by cert i f i ed
m ai l and bear s a U . S . postof f i ce post m ar k ofN ovem ber21 , 20 07 . Ther ef or e,6

Sou t hw e s t ’ s r e spon s e s w e r e d uet hi rt y- t hr e e d a ysl a t e r , o n Dec e m be r24, 2007. Te x. R. Ci v. P. 21a . So ut hw e s tf i l e d i t s r e s po ns e s o n Dec e m be r28, 2007. Sout hw es tan d Guzm an r ef erus t o Etheredg ean d t o Payton v. A sh ton , 29 S. W . 3d 89 6 ( Tex . A pp. — A m ar i l l o 20 00 , no pet . ) , f or t he pr opo si t i on t hat t he dat e o f“ ac t ual s ervi ce ” or “a ct ual r ec ei pt ” oft he r equ es t s f orad m i ss i ons o n t h e r e s p o n d i n g p a rtyi s th e c ri ti c a l a n d d i s p o s i ti v e d a te . Etheredg ean d Paytonb o th i n v o l v e d re q u e s ts fo r a d m i s s i o n s s e n t c e rti fi e d m a i l th a t w e re
r et ur ned “uncl ai m ed. ” Etheredg e , 1 6 9 S .W .3 d a t 3 8 3

– 8 4 ; Payton , 29 S. W . 3d
a t8 9 8 . H e r e , in c o n t r a s t , S o u t h w e s ta n d G u z m a n a d m itt h a tt h e ya c t u a lly
r ecei ved t he r equest s f or adm i ssi on, butt hey ar gue t hatbecause t hey r ecei ved t he r equest s out si de oft he t hr ee days pr ovi ded f or i n r ul e 21 a, t hei rr esponses sh oul d notha ve bee n de em ed adm i t t ed. Sout hw es tan d Guzm an r ef e r t o a f oot not e i n Etheredg ein w h ic h t h is
c o u rtsta ted tha t, o n rem a n d , rule 1 9 8 . 2 “ w il l a l l o w E th e red g e thirty d a y s to
r es pond upon rec eivi ng HVA A’ s r e q u e s tf o ra d mi s s i o n s u n l e s s HV AA
es t abl i sh est hatEt her edg e h a s al r ea dy r ec ei ved co ns t r uct i ve not i ce oft he
r equ es t . ” 169 S . W . 3d at383 n. 3 ( em pha si s add ed) . How ever , w i t hi n t he
c a s e ’s c o n te x t, th i s s ta te m e n t a c te d n o t to m o d i fyo r e x p a n d ru l e 1 9 8 .2 ’s
r equ i re m e n t of“ w i t hi n t hi rt y da ys aft ers ervi ce ” orr ul e 21a’ s def i ni t i on of7

se rvi c e b yce rt i fi e d m a i l , b u t i n ste a d to e sta b l i sh tha t Eth e red g e ac tu a l l yh a d to be served, a s H V A A ’s p rev i o u s re q u e sts for a d m i ss i o n s h a d b e e n retu rne d to H V A A “ u n c l a i m e d ,” a n d E th e re d g e h a d th e re fo re n e v e r re c e i v e d th e m . See i d. at38 2– 83 . A part y’ s dut y t o r espond i s t r i gger ed upo n r ecei pt of t he r equest s, butt hatpa rt y a l so ha s a d ut y t o not e t he dat e o fs ervi ce an d t o c al cul at e t he d u e d a te o f i ts re s p o n s e s f r o m t h e d a te o f s e rv i c e . S e eCu dd v. H ydro s ta tic Transm i ssi on, I nc . , 8 6 7 S .W .2 d 1 0 1 , 1 0 2

– 0 3 ( T e x . A p p .— C o rpu s C h ri sti 199 3, no w r i t ) ( “Ther ul esdo n otpr ovi de aut om at i c t ol l i ng oft he st artda t e d ue to ta rd ym a i l s e rv i c e .” ). H er e, r ul es21a an d 19 8 .3 w e re a vai l abl e t o pr ovi de Sout hw es tan d G uzm an w i t h a r em edy. Rul e 21 a st at es: N ot hi ng her ei n sh al l pr ec l ude any part y f r om of f er i ng pr ooft hatt he n o ti c e o r i n s tru m e n t w a s n o t re c e i v e d , o r, if s ervic ewa sb ym a il, th a titwa sn o tre c eive d with inth re eda ys f

ro m th e da te o f

dep o sit i n a postof

f i ce orof f i ci al dep os i t or y unde rt he ca r e a nd c us t ody of th e U n i te d S ta te s P o s ta l S e rv i c e , a n d u p o n s o fi n d i n g , th e c o u rt m ay ext end t he t i m e f ort ak i ng t he ac t i on r equ i r ed ofs uch pa rt y or g ra n t s u c h o th e r re l i e f a s i t d e e m s j u s t. T e x . R . C i v . P . 2 1 a (e m p h a s i s a d d e d ). R u l e 1 9 8 .3 s ta te s th a t th e tri a l c o u rt
m ay per m i ta part y t o w i t hdr aw an adm i ss i on i ft he part y s how s good ca us e f or t he w i t hdr aw al and t he cour tf i nds t hatt he part y r el yi ng o n th e deem ed
a d m i s s i o n s w i l l n o t b e u n d u l yp rej u d i c e d . T e x . R . C i v . P . 1 9 8 .3 ; se e a l so R enee H . T o b i a s , D eem ed A dm i ssi ons:To ol

, Trap or

Bo th? 46 Ba yl orL . Re v. 709, 7138

( 19 94 ) ( st at i ng t hata m ot i on t o ext end t i m e t o r espond , t o prev entdeem ed adm i ss i ons , m us tbe f i l ed pr i or t o t he exp i r at i on oft he or i gi nal t hi rt y- daype r i od bec aus e d ee m ed adm i ss i ons ar e a ut om at i c; i f t i m e haspa ss ed, t hen a m ot i on to w i th d ra w d e e m e d a d m i s s i o n s m u s t b e fi l e d ). Sout hw es tan d Guzm an of f er ed pr ooft hatt he re que st s f orad m i ss i ons
w e re n o t re c e i v e d w i th i n th re e d a y s fro m th e d a te o f d e p o s i t, a n d th e tri a l c o u rt gr ant ed both part i es addi t i onal t i m e t o f i l e “w hat eversuppl em ent al pl eadi ng[ s] y o u w a n t t o fi l e .” H o w e v e r, S o u th w e st a n d G u zm a n fai l e d to fi l e a m o ti o n to
w i t hdr aw t hei rad m i ss i ons . Ther ef or e, t he dee m ed adm i ss i ons r el i ed upon by W i l m i ngton i n i t s r esponse t o S outhw estan d G uzm an’ s speci al appear ances
w e re n e v e r w i th d ra w n . W e o v e rru l e S o u th w e s t a n d G u z m a n ’s th i rd i s s u e . C. Per so nalJur i sd i ct i on T e x a s c o u rt s m a ye x e r c is e ju r is d ic t io n o v e ra n o n r e s id e n td e f e n d a n to n ly i f th e e xer ci seofj ur i sd i ct i on i s aut hor i z ed by t he Texa s l ong- ar m s t at ut e a nd
c o m p o rts w i th s ta te a n d fe d e ra l c o n s ti tu ti o n a l g u a ra n te e s o f d u e p ro c e s s . Moki Mac River Expe diti ons v. D rugg , 2 2 1 S .W .3 d 5 6 9 , 5 7 4

– 7 5 (T e x . 2 0 0 7 ); BM CSo ftwa re , 83 S. W . 3d at 795 . The f ede r al due pr oce ss t es t con s i s ts of t w o part s: ( 1) w het her t he non r esi dent def endan t pur posely e s ta b l i shed “m i ni m um co nt ac t s”i n t he f or um s t at e; a nd ( 2) i fs o, w het hert he exe r ci seof p e rs o n a l j u ri s d i c ti o n c o m p o rts w i th “ fa i r p l a ya n d s u b s ta n ti a l j u s ti c e .” Bur ger9

K i ng C or p. v. Ru dzewi

cz , 471 U. S. 462, 475– 76, 105 S. Ct . 2174 , 2183 –84 (1 9 8 5 ); Gua rd

i a nRo ya l

E x ch . Ass ura n c e, L td. v. E ngl i shCh i n a Cl a ys, P. L . C. , 815 S. W . 2d 223 , 230 –31 ( Tex. 1991 ) . M i ni m um co nt ac t s ar e s uf f i ci entf or p e r s o n a l ju r is d ic t io n w h e n t h e n o n r e s id e n t d e f e n d a n t p u r p o s e f u llya v a ils it s e lf of t h e p r i v i l e g e o fc o n d u c t i n g a c t i v i t i e s wi t h i n t h e f o r u m s t a t e , t h u s i n v o ki ng th e b e n e fi ts a n d p ro te c ti o n s o f i ts l a w s . S ee Han so n v. D e n c kla , 357 U. S. 2 3 5 , 2 5 3 , 7 8 S . C t. 1 2 2 8 , 1 2 4 0 (1 9 5 8 ); Mi chi ana Eas y Livi

n' Country, I

nc. v. Holten , 1 6 8 S .W .3 d 7 7 7 , 7 8 4 (T e x . 2 0 0 5 ). A nonr esi dent’ s cont act s w i t h t he f or um st at e m ay gi ve r i se t o ei t her
s p e c i fi c o r g e n e ra l j u ri s d i c ti o n . BM CSo ftwa re , 8 3 S .W .3 d a t 7 9 5

– 9 6 . S peci f i c j ur i sdi ct i on exi st s w her e t he def endan t ’ s al l eged l i abi l i t y st em s f r om an ac t i vi t y con duc t ed w i t hi n t he f or u m s ta te . Id . at79 6. A Texas cou rtm ay a s s e rt s p e c i fi c j u ri s d i c ti o n o v e r a n o u t-o f-s ta te d e fe n d a n t i f th e d e fe n d a n t’s
c o n tac t w i th this sta te i s p u r p o s e f u l a n d the i n j u ry a ri se s from o r r e l a tes to th o s e c o n ta c ts . S ee Moki Mac , 2 2 1 S .W .3 d a t5 7 2

– 7 3 , 5 7 6 (c o n s id e r in g , in l i g h t of Mich i

a na , t he ext entt o w hi ch a c l ai m m us t“ ar i sef r om orr el at e t o” fo r um co nt ac t s t o c onf ers pec i f i c j ur i sd i ct i on ov era nonr es i den tde f en d a n t). T h i s “ p u rp o s e fu l a v a i l m e n t” i n q u i ryh a s th re e p a r t s : ( 1 ) o n l yth e d e fe n d a n t’s
c o n tac ts w i th the foru m are rel e v a n t, n o t t h e u n i l a tera l ac ti v i ty o f an o th e r pa rt y ora t hi r d per son; ( 2) t he contact s r el i ed upo n m ustbe pur posef ul r at hert han3 ... The “ I ns t r u c t i ons / D ef i ni t i ons ” se ct i on ofW i l m i ngt on’ s r equ es t s f or

adm i ssi ons def i nes “Pr oj ect ” as t he ai r cr af t and avi oni cs m ai nt enance, goo ds, and ser vi ces pr ovi ded by [ G uz m an and Sout hw es t ] , i ncl udi ng ai r cr af tan d a vi oni csgood s and ser vi ces r equi r ed f ort he A i r cr af t t o be m odi f i ed and cert i f i cat ed f o ro p e r a t i o n s r e q u i r i n g c o mp l i a n c e wi t h R e d u c e d Ve rt i cal Separ at i on M i ni m a ( “RVS M ”) , t he upda t e t o t he A i rcr af t ’ s Fl i ght M a n a g e m e n tS y s t e m (“ F M S ” ), a n d t h e in s t a lla t io n o fa T e r r a in A w a re n e s s a n d W a rn i n g S y s te m (“T A W S ” ).

4 ... Th e “I nst ru c tio ns/ D ef i ni t i ons” sect i on defi nes “r el evantt i m e f r am e” a s “ fro m th e y e a r 2 0 0 3 to th e p re s e n t.”

5 ... Th e “I nst r uct i ons/ D ef i ni t i ons” sect i on defi nes “ A i r cr af t ” as “t hat c e rt a i n G ul f s t r e a m I I m ul t i

- e ng i nej e ta i r c r a f t , r e gi s t r a t i on n um be rN4NR, m a n u f a c t u r e r ’s s e r ia l n u m b e r2 2 5 a n d /o rt h a tc e rt a in a ir c r a f tm a d e t h e b a s is a n d s u b j e c t o f P l a i n ti ff’s P e ti ti o n , a s a m e n d e d , i n th i s l a w s u i t.” 10 r a n d o m, f o rt u i t o u s , o ra t t e n u a t e d ; a n d ( 3 ) t h e d e f e n d a n tmu s ts e e ks o me b e n e fi t, a d v a n ta g e , o r p ro fi t b y“ a v a i l i n g ” i ts e l f o f th e j u ri s d i c ti o n . Id . a t575; Mi chi ana , 1 6 8 S .W .3 d a t 7 8 4

– 8 5 ; se e al so Wor ld- W i de Vol ks wagen Cor

p. v. Woods on , 4 4 4 U .S . 2 8 6 , 2 9 7 , 1 0 0 S . C t. 5 5 9 , 5 6 7 (1 9 8 0 ). The f ol l ow i ng r equ es t s f orad m i ss i on w er e d ee m ed adm i t t ed: 1. A dm i tt hatyou traveled to Phaz ar at t he FortW ort h Ai r porton a t l e a st o n e o c c a sion i n co n n e c ti o n w i th the P rojec t, 3 d u ri ng t he r el evantt i m e f r am e. 4 2. A dm i tt hatyou w er e on bo ard th e A i rcraft 5 du r i ng t h e t im e it w a s a t P h a z a ra tt h e F o rtW o rt h A ir p o rtd u r in g t h e re le v a n tt im e f r am e.11

3. A dm i tt hatyou p e rf or m ed avi oni cs and ot hersyst em t r oub l eshooti ng on t he A i r cr af tr el at ed t o t he Pr oj ect w hi l e i tw as l ocat ed at t he Fort W ort h A i r por t , dur i ng t he r el evantt i m e f r am e. 4. A dm i tt hatyou m et with re p re s e n ta ti v e s o f P l a i n ti ff a t th e F o rt W ort h A i r portdur i ng t he r el evantt i m e f r am e. 5. A dm i tt hatyou m et with re p re s e n ta ti v e s o f P h a z a r a t th e F o rt W ort h Ai r port dur i ng t he r el eva nt t i m e f r am e i n con nec t i on w i t h t he A i rcraft an d /or the P rojec t. 6. A dm i tt hatyou rm ee t i ngs w i t h r epr es ent at i vesof Pl ai nt i f f and of P h a za r at P h a za r at the F o rtW o rt h A i rpo rt were i nco n n e c ti

o nwith pr obl em s t hat conti nued t o exi st i n conn ect i on w i t h t he Pr oj ectt hat r equi r ed cor r ect i on, dur i ng t he r el evantt i m e f r am e. 7. A dm i tt hatyou attended m eeti

ngs wi t h P l a i nt i f f s’ rep res e n t a t iv e s a t P h a za r at the F o rtW o rt h A i rpo rtfr o m ti m e to t i m e dur i ng t he r el evantt i m e f r am e. 8. A dm i t t hat y ou attended a m ee ti ng w i t h Pl ai nt i f f s’ r e pr e s e nt a t i ve s a nd w i t h c ou ns e l f or t he Pl a i nt i f f s o n Nov e m be r30, 2 0 0 5 , a t P h a za r at the F o rtW o rt h A i rpo rt . 9. A dm i tt hatt he m eet i ng you at t ended on N ovem ber 30 , 20 05 , at P h a z a r a t th e F o rt W o rth A i rp o rt, was f or the pur pose , i n pa rt , of di scussi ng t h e A ir cr af tand t he Pr oj ect , w i t h Pl ai nt i f f s’ r epr esent at i ves. A lt h o u g h S o u t h w e s t a n d G u z m a n c la im t h a tt h e yc o m m it t e d n o s p e c if ic
orpu rp o s e fu l a ct s i n Tex asan d t hatt her e i s no e vi den ce oft hei rpur pos ef ul avai l m entt hr oug h w hi ch t hey can be sai d t o have soug hta b e nef i ti n T exas, t hei rdeem ed adm i ssi ons cl ear l y pr ovi de a b a s is f ort he t r i al courtt o exer ci se s p e c i fi c p e rs o n a l j u ri s d i c ti o n . U n d e r Moki Mac , t he dee m ed adm i ss i ons ab ove12

d e s c ri b e re l e v a n t c o n ta c ts b yS o u t h w e s t a n d G u z m a n i n T e x a s th a t w e re p u rp o s e fu l ra th e r th a n ra n d o m , fo rtu i to u s , o r a tte n u a te d . S ee22 1 S . W . 3d at 575 . Fu rt her m or e, Sout hw es tan d G uz m an nev erde ni ed t hatt heyha d a contr actw i t h W i l m i ngton i nvol vi ng t he A i r cr af to r t hatt hey f ai l ed t o seek a benefi tf r om per f or m i ng t he contr act t hat , pert he deem ed adm i ssi ons, i nvol ved
so m e p er f or m anc e i n Tex as . Ther ef or e, su f f i ci ent con t ac t s exi st ed t o gi ve t he tri a l c o u rt s p e c i fi c p e rs o n a l j u ri s d i c ti o n o v e r S o u th w e s t a n d G u z m a n . W e over r ul e So ut hw estand G uzm an’ s f i r sti ssue. I V . Concl us i on H a v i n g o v e rru l e d S o u th w e s t a n d G u z m a n ’s d i s p o s i ti v e i s s u e s , w e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t. S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 1.

B OB M CC OY J U S T I C E PA N EL: LI V I N G STO N , D A U PH I N O T, an d M C C O Y, JJ. DEL I VERE D: Nov e m be r20, 2008