# NUMBE R 1 3 - 0 8 - 0 0 5 2 8 - CV 

# COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

# EDI NBURG
M CELROY M ACHINE & M A NUFACTURING COM PA NY, I NC. A ND D V C C S E RV I C E S C O R P O RAT I O N F / K/A PRE DC O SERVICE S COR PORA TION A pp ellan ts,
v . LU IS B EL TR

A N FL ORE S, A pp ellee.
On a p p ea l f ro m th e 40 4t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of C amero n Co un ty , T exas . 

# ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re Ju stice s Y añ ez, R od rigu ez, an d Be na v ide s M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice Ya ñe z In t his ac cel erated int er loc utor y appeal , app ell ants , M cEl ro y Machine & Ma nufactur ing Company ., Inc . ( "Mc El ro y M achi ne") and DV CC Ser v ic es Cor porati on. f/k/a Predco Ser

v ic es Cor porati on ( "DV CC "), ch all eng e the tr ial co urt' s d eni al of thei r spec ialSee T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN . § 5 1 .0 1 4 (a )( 7 ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 8 ); T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 28. 1. 1 McE l r o y/ Ca t c h o t W i nch Co. , C oast al M ar i ne Equi pm ent , I nc. , O cean M ar i ne, I nc. , Li nwood T r awl er s, 2 In c ., th e M /V C a p t. L in w o o d , a n d D o lb y L in w o o d a r e n o t p a r tie s to th is a p p e a l. 

## 2 app eara nce. App ellee is Luis Beltan Flores. Beca use w e conclu de that the t ri a l c o u rt

1 

## lacked person al jurisdiction over appe llants, w e rev erse the t rial cou rt's o rder and dismiss the case against a ppe llants. I. Background Fl ores filed su itag ain st Mc El ro y /C atc hot W inc h C o. ( "Mc El roy/Ca tch ot") , C oast al Ma ri ne Eq uip ment, Inc . ( "CM E") , O cean Ma ri ne, I nc. ( "OM I") , Li nw ood Traw lers, Inc ., the M/VCa p t

. L in wo o d , Do lb yL in wo o d , a n d a p p e ll a n t s , a ll e gi n g t h a th e wa s in ju re d b y a defecti v e w inc h w hil e empl oy ed as a s eam a n o n t h e M /V Capt . Li nw ood. F lores sued 2 

## appel lan ts and O MI for n eg li g ence , gross neg li g ence, mis re present ati on, a nd product s li a b il it y. Appel lan ts filed a s peci al appea ra n ce all eg ing thatthe tr ial co urt l ack ed personal jur is dicti on ov er

them; appel lan ts attac hed t h e aff ida v it s o f DVC C' s for mer presi dent, Ant hon y Frascella, and McElroy Machine's forme r presiden t, Harold Catch ot, t o their specia l appe aran ce. Af ter a M a rc h 24, 20 08 h earing, the trial court den ied ap pellan ts’ spec ial appearance. Thi s a ppeal ens ued. II. P ERSONA L 

## J URI S DI CT I ON 

## A . Texas Long-

A rm Statute A T exas court ma y

ex ercise perso nal jurisdiction over a nonreside nt de fend antonlySee T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 17. 042 ( Ver non 2008) ( per m i t t i ng T exas co ur t s t o exe r ci se 3 pe rso na l j uri s di c t i on ove r non res i de nt d e fe nd an t s w ho are d oi ng bu s i ne s s i n T ex as ). T he T ex as l on g-a rm st at ut e, sect i on 1 7. 042, pr ov i des a s f ol l ows:

In a d d itio n to o th e r a c ts th a t m a y c o n s tit u te d o in g b u s in e s s , a n o n r e s id e n t d o e s b u s in e s s in th i s s ta te i f th e n o n re s i d e n t:

(1 ) c o n tra c ts b y m a i l o r o th e rw i s e w i th a T e x a s re s i d e n t a n d w i th e r p a rty i s to

per f or m t he co nt r act i n whol e ori n pa r t i n t hi s st at e; ( 2) com m i t s a t or t i n whol e ori n pa r t i n t hi s st at e; or ( 3 ) r e c r u its T e x a s r e s id e n ts , d ir e c tly o r th r o u g h a n in te r m e d ia r y lo c a te d in th is st at e, f orem pl oy m ent i nsi de o r out si de t hi s st at e. I d. BMC So f

t wa re Be lg i u m , N. V. v. Mar chand , 83 S. W

. 3d 7 89, 795 ( T ex. 200 2) ( quot i ng U
-Anchor 4 A dv er. , I nc . v. B urt , 55 3 S

. W

. 2d 76 0, 76 2 (T ex . 19 77 ))

.

I nt ' l Shoe Co. v. W ashi

ngt on , 3 2 6 U .S

. 3 1 0 , 3 1 6 (1 9 4 5 ); B M C S oft w are , 8 3 S .W .3 d a t 7 9 5 ; see U

. S. 5 C ON ST
. a m e n d . X IV , § 1 ; see also Bur ger King Cor

p. v. R udz ew i cz , 471 U

. S. 462 , 471
- 72 ( 1985) ( " T he Due Pr ocess Cl ause pr ot ect s an i ndi v i dual ' s l i ber t y i nt er est i n not bei ng subj ect t o t he bi ndi ng j udgm ent s ofa f or um wi t h whi ch he has est abl i shed no m eani ngf ul ' cont act s, t i es, orr el at i ons. ' " ) ( ci t i ng I nt ' l Shoe , 32 6 U

. S

. at 31 9). 

## 3 if jurisdiction is a uth oriz ed by the T exas long-arm statu te. Althou gh the T exas long-arm 3 

## sta tute li sts acti v it ies that cons ti tute "doi ng busi ness ," thi s li st is not ex cl usi v e, an d "s ect ion 17.042' s b ro ad lan g uag e extends Tex as cour ts' personal j ur is dicti on ' as far as the federal
cons ti tuti onal req uirements of due proces s w il l per mit. '" The Due Proces s C lau se of the 4 

## F o u rt een th Am end me nt allows a Texas court to exercise person al jurisdiction over a
nonresi dent defendant w hen ( 1) the nonresi den t defendant has es tabl is hed mi nimum cont act s w it h Tex as, and (2 ) the e x erci se of jur is dicti on comports w it h "tradi ti onal noti ons of fair pl ay and subs tanti al jus ti ce. " 5 

## B. M inimum Contacts A nonresi dent est abl is hes mini mum cont act s w it h Tex as by pur poseful ly

av ail ingM oki Mac R i ver

Expeditions v. D rugg , 221 S. W

. 3d 5 69, 575 , 578 ( T ex. 200 7) ( " [ A] def endan t m ust 6 seek som e be nef i t , adv ant age orpr of i t by' av ai l i ng' i t sel fof t he j ur i s di ct i on. " ) ( quot i ng M i chiana Easy Li vin' C ountr y, I nc. v. H ol t en , 1 6 8 S .W .3 d 7 7 7 , 7 8 5 (2 0 0 5 )) ; M i chiana , 168 S. W

. 3d a t 784 ( " For hal fa cent ur y , t he to u c h s to n e o f j u ris d i c ti o n a l d u e p ro c e s s h a s b e e n 'p u rp o s e fu l a v a i l m e n t.' "); see Bur ger King Cor

p. , 4 71 U. S. at 476

. M oki

Mac , 221 S. W

. 3d a t 575 ( ci t i ng M i chiana , 16 8 S

. W

. 3d at 78 4-8 5). 7 M i chiana , 168 S. W

. 3d a t 785 ( " [ P] ur posef ul av ai l m ent ' ensur es t hat a de f endan t wi l l notbe hal ed 8 i nt o a j ur i sdi ct i on sol el y as a r esul t of

. . . t he uni l at er al act i v i t y ofanot herpar t y or a t hi r d pe r son. ' " ) ( quot i ng Bur ger King Cor

p. , 47 1 U

. S

. at 47 5) (i nterna l qu otat i on s om i t t ed ))

. I d. 9 I d. 10 M oki Mac , 221 S. W

. 3d a t 575

. 11 I d. at 572
- 73. 12 I d. at 585 ( " [ W ] e bel i ev e t hat f or a nonr esi dent def endan t ' s f or um cont act s t o suppor t an e xer ci se 13 o f s p e c i fic ju ris d i c ti o n , th e re m u s t b e a s u b s ta n ti a l c o n n e c ti o n b e tw e e n th o s e c o n ta c ts a n d th e o p e ra ti v e fa c ts of t he l i t i ga t i on . " ). 

## 4 itself of the privi leges and ben ef its inheren t in cond ucting busin ess in the state

. The re are 6 

## at l eastthre e a sp ect s o f our pur poseful av ail ment i nq uir y . F irst, onl y

the nonresi dent 7 

## defendant' s c ontacts w it h the for um state are cons ide re d and not acts of a thi rd person or another par

ty

. Se cond, the cont act s mus t be pur poseful and not "random, i sol ated, or 8 

## fortui tous ." F ina ll y , t he nonresi dent defendant mus t hav e s oug ht "s ome benefit ,

9 

## adv antag e, or

profit by ' av ail ing ' it sel f of

the jur is dicti on." 10 

## A non residen t defend ant 's cont acts w ith the forum state may create eith er specif ic
or g eneral jurisd icti on. Sp eci fic j ur is dicti on ex is ts if the nonresi dent defendant 11 

## pur pose f u lly d ire cted hi s a cti v it ies at a resi dent of Tex as and t he l it ig ati on arose from or
re lat e d t o t hose cont act s. I n oth er w ords, there mustbe a su bst anti al conne cti on 12 

## betw een t he nonresi dent defendant's contact s a nd th e operati v e facts of the l it ig ati on. 13 

## General jur is dicti on ex is ts w hen the defendant' s conta cts in the forum are c onti nuous andB M C S oft w are , 83 S. W

. 3d a t 796

. 14 I d. at 793

. 15 M oki Mac , 2 2 1 S .W .3 d a t 5 7 4 ; B M C S oft w are , 8 3 S .W .3 d a t 7 9 3 ; El Puert o de Li ver

pool , S. A. de 16 C

. V. v. Servi

M un do Llan t er

o, S. A. de C

. V. , 8 2 S .W .3 d 6 2 2 , 6 2 8 ( T e x . A p p .– C o r p u s C h r is ti 2 0 0 2 , p e t. d is m ’d w . o.j

. ). T EX
. R. C IV
. P

. 12 0a (3).

17 M oki Mac , 2 2 1 S .W .3 d a t 5 7 4 ; B M C S oft w are , 83 S. W

. 3d a t 794

. 18 M oki Mac , 221 S. W

. 3d a t 574 ( quot i ng B M C S oft w are , 83 S

. W

. 3d at 79 5). 19 

## 5 syste mati c; therefore, the for um may ex erci se personal j ur is diction o v er the nonresi dent defendant "ev en i f the c ause of acti on di d notari se from or rela te t o acti v it ies co nduct ed
w it hin the forum s tate. " 14 

## III . S TA NDA RD OF 

## R EVI EW 

## T h e pl a in t i f

f be a rs t h e in it ia l b u rd e n of pl e a d in g "s u f

f ici e n t a lle gat io n s t o bri n g a nonresi dent def e n d a n t wi thi n the prov is ion s o f the l ong -a rm sta tute. " W hen a spec ial 15 

## appearance is f il ed, the non re si dent defendant as sumes the burden of neg ati ng al l bases of pers onal j ur is dicti on asse rt ed by the pla int iff. The t ri al cour t det er mines the spec ial 16 

## appearance by

referr ing t o t h e p le adi ng s, any st ipu lat ion s made by

and betw een t he par ti es, any aff ida v it s a nd attac hments fil ed by the parti e s, dis cov er

y , and any

oral tes ti mony . W hether the tr ial cour t has personal jur is dicti on ov er a defendant is a q uest ion 17 

## of law thatthis Court rev iew s de no v o. "W h e n , a s h e re , t h e trial court do es no t ma ke 18 

## f indings of

fact an d con clusions o f law in suppo rt of

its r uling, w e infer 'all fa cts nece ssary to sup port th e judgme nt an d sup porte d by the evi den ce . . . .'" 19 

## IV. A PP EL LA NTS 

## ' S PE CI A L 

## A P P E A RA NCE 

## By thei r sol e i ss ue, a ppel lan ts cont end t hat t hey hav e notes tabl is hed mi nimum

## 6

cont act s w it h T ex as and that the ex erci se of jur is dicti on ov er them does not c omport w it h tradi ti onal noti ons of fair play and subs tanti al ju sti ce. Spec ific all y , appell ants arg ue th at: (1) Flores did not plead suf f icient j urisdiction al allegation s; (2) the re is no basis for specif ic jur is dicti on bec ause appel lan ts' al leg ed l iab il ity does not ar is e outof and i s n ot rela ted t o any activ ity the y cond ucte d in T exas; (3) the re is no basis for general jurisdiction be cause a p p e l l a n t s d o n o th a v e su ffi c i e n tco n t i n u o u s an d sys t e ma t i cc o n t a c t s w i t h T e x a s t o s a t i s fy due proces s; and ( 4) there i s "n o c onst it uti onal ly per mis si ble ba sis to ass ert personal jur is dicti on ov er

[app ell ants ] i n thi s a cti on." A . Flores's Jurisdic tional A llega tions First, appe llants asse rt that Flores did notp lead su f f icient jurisdictiona l allegations. W e ac know led g e tha t w hen t he pla intiff fail s t o pl ead j ur is dicti onal al leg ati ons, the defendant mus t s impl y prov e nonresi dency

to sus tain its b urden; how ev er , w e di sag re e
w it h appel lan ts ' a ss erti on th at F lores did not ple ad j ur is dicti onal al leg ati ons inv oki ng the lon g -a rm sta tute. In hi s l iv e pl eadi ng , F lores all eg ed that he w as inj ured by a de fecti v e w inc h tha t w as "o rig inally designed , ma nufactu red, assem bled , and so ld" by McElroy Mach ine and DVCC. Flores f urthe r alleged thatapp ellant s w ere liable for h is inju ries "un der the doctrine of strict prod uct liability" and tha t app ellant s " com mitt ed acts of omission and comm ission, w hich collectively

and sev erallyconstitu ted neglig e n c e " t h a tw ere the proxi ma te cau se of his inj ur ies and damag es. F ina lly, Fl ores ass erted t hat C amero n C ounty , Tex as, w as the "co unt y in w hich all or a subst ant ial part of the events or om issions giv ing r ise to [his] claim occurred " an d tha t he is a residen t of Te x as.See Tex. D ep't of Par ks & W il dl i f

e v. Mir anda , 1 3 3 S .W .3 d 2 1 7 , 2 2 6 ( T e x . 2 0 0 4 ) ( h o ld in g th a t in 20 det er m i ni ng p l ea t o j ur i sdi ct i on, pl eadi ngs ar e l i ber al l y const r ued i n f av orof pl eaderi n asse ssi ng whet herhe h a s p l e d s u ff i c i e n t fa c ts to d e m o n s tra te tri a l c o u rt's ju ris d i c ti o n ); see a lso T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 1 7.04 2(2 ).

W e no t e t hat al t hough we ha v e con cl uded t hat Fl or es pl eaded suff i ci ent al l egat i ons u ndert he l ong- 21 ar m st at ut e, t he m er e al l egat i on t hat a t or t occur r ed i n T exas d oes n ot supp or t j ur i sdi ct i on o v era def endan t undert he Due Pr ocess Cl ause, whi ch r equi r es t hat t he nonr esi dent def endan t pur posef ul l y av ai l i t sel fof t he fo ru m s ta te 's ju ris d i c ti o n . See Mi chiana , 168 S. W

. 3d a t 788, 791- 92 ( " Al l egat i ons t hat a t or t was com m i t t ed i n T exas sa t i sfy t he T exas Long- Ar m S t at ut e, butnotnece ssar i l y t he U. S. C onst i t ut i on; t he b r oad l angua ge oft he f or m erext ends onl y as f ar as the l at t erwi l l per m i t

. . . . [ W ] e di sappr ov e of t hose opi ni ons h ol di ng th a t .

. . s p e c i fic ju ris d ic tio n tu rn s o n w h e th e r a d e fe n d a n t' s c o n ta c ts w e re to rti o u s ra th e r th a n th e c o n ta c ts t he m s el ves . " ).

See M oki

Mac , 2 2 1 S .W .3 d a t 5 7 4 ; B M C S oft w are , 8 3 S .W .3 d a t 7 9 3 ; E l P u e rto , 82 S. W

. 3d a t 628

. 22 M cEl r oy M achi ne was m er ged i nt o DV C C i n 19 99. 23 D VC C ' s cor por at e st r uct ur e was t er m i nat ed b y way of cor por at e di ssol ut i on i n 20 07. 24 

## 7 Lib erall y cons tr uin g Fl ores' s ple adi ng , w e conc lud e that Fl ores' s a ll eg ati ons that 20 

## he su f fered an injury in Te x as du e to a d efective w inch m anu fa c t u re d b y a p pellan ts are suffici ent to br ing appel lan ts under the lon g -a rm sta tute. Beca use Fl ore s p leaded 21 

## suffici ent j ur is dicti onal al leg ati ons, upon fili ng thei r spec ial appearance, appel lan ts
ass umed the burden of neg ati ng al l bases of personal j ur is dicti on. 22 

## B. Basis for Jurisdic tion 1. General Jur is dicti on Mc El ro y M achi ne w as inc or porated under the laws o f the s tate of Mississ ipp i and has nev er

been inc or porated under the laws o f Texa s. D VC C w as former ly i ncor porated 23 

## under the laws o f New

Je rs ey and has not been i ncor porated under Tex as law

. N eit her

24 

## McEl ro y M achi ne nor

D VC C has been reg is tered as a bu si ness org ani z ati on w it h the Tex as Secretar

y of Stat e, an d nei ther

has ow ned, operated, or manag ed a p lace of busi ness , branch off ic e, or di v is ion i n Tex as. M cEl ro y M achi ne an d D VC C hav e nei ther
ow ned real proper

ty i n Tex as nor

pai d i ncome tax es in Tex as. Non e of McEl ro y M achi neW e no t e t hat C at chot t est i f i ed t hat M cEl r oy ' s r ecor ds wer e de st r oy ed b y H ur r i cane Kat r i na. 25See CS R , Lt d. v. Li nk , 92 5 S

. W

. 2d 59 1, 59 5 (T ex . 19 96 ). 26 S ee B M C S oft w are , 83 S. W

. 3d a t 796

. 27 Ca t c h o t p u r c h a s e d t h e a s s e t s o f M c El r o y M a c h i n e i n 1 9 9 9 a n d f o r m e d M c El r o y / Ca t c h o t W i nch 28 C o m p a n y. 

## 8 and D VC C' s o ff ic ers o r direct ors h av e been re si dents of Tex as, an d n e it h er M cEl ro y Machine nor DVCC has recruited o r t ra in e d e mp loyees in Te x as. T here is no ev iden ce tha t McElroy

Machine o r DVCC has ba nk acco unt s in Te x as or has en tered a contra ct in Tex as. Fur

ther more, Mc El ro y Ma chi ne has not maint ain ed i ts re cords in Tex as and has
no s harehol ders i n Tex as. Und er thes e facts , nei ther M cEl ro y M achi ne nor

D VC C had 25 

## the s y s t e ma t i ca n d c o n t i n u o u s c o n t a c t s w i t h T e x a s s u ffi c i e n tt o s u p p o rtg ener al jur is dicti on. 26 

## Fl ores arg ues that Cat chot 's tes ti mony thathe s old product s t o a Tex as cor porati on and thatsales agents for McElroy /Catch ot solicited busine ss f rom a Te x as re t a ile r is suf f icient to estab lish person al jurisdiction. How ever, beca use Flores's cause of action did notarise f rom o r relate to the se alleged act iv ities cond ucte d w ithin T exas, the trial court had personal j ur is dicti on ov er appel lan ts onl y

i f those cont act s b etw een app ell ants and Tex as w ere c onti nuous and syste mati c. C atc hot t est if ied at his depos it ion thatsa les 27


## w ere made t o a Tex as cor porati on. Acc ordin g to Cat chot , he sol d dis count ed c omponent par ts for re p la cementw inc hes to a Tex as deal er . Cat chotdi d notsp eci fy w hether the sal es w ere mad e b y Mc Elroy M achi ne or

by M cEl ro y /C atc hot, and he did not sta te t hat DVCC mad e an y

sales in Te x as. Nev erthe less, in the ir af f idavits, Catcho t and Frascella 28 

## sta ted, "Any busi ness re lat ion shi ps betw een [ Mc El ro y M achi ne or

D VC C] and any

Tex asC SR Lt d. , 925 S. W

. 2d a t 595

. 29 I d. 30 See C onner

v. C onti C ar

r ier s & Ter m inals, I nc. , 9 4 4 S .W .2 d 4 0 5 , 4 1 7 -1 8 (T e x . A p p .– H o u s to n [1 4 th 31 D i st

. ] 199 7, no wr i t ) ( f i ndi ng n o gener al j ur i sdi ct i on ev en t hough non r esi dent def endan t : ( 1) was au t hor i z ed t o do b us i ne s s i n T ex as; ( 2) had a r egi st er ed a gent f orser v i ce of pr ocess i n T exas; ( 3) f i l ed f r anchi se t ax r et ur ns i n T exas; ( 4) sentbar ges t o T exas p or t s f or ov er t en y ear s; ( 5) had cont act s wi t h T exas b usi nesses; ( 6) ear ned y ear l y r ev enue f r om bar ges l oaded or unl oaded i n T exas; ( 7) hi r ed T exas e m pl oy ees; ( 8) l i t i gat ed i n a T exas co ur t ; and ( 9) had a gr oss r ev enue f r om 1991 t o 1993 f r om bar ges u nl oadi ng a nd l oadi ng i n T eas be t w ee n $ 8,00 0 a nd $1 2,00 0).

S e e H e lic o p te ro s N a c io n a le s d e C o lo m b ia , S .A ., v . H a ll , 466 U

. S. 408, 411 ( 1984) ( hol di ng t hat t he 32 def endan t ' s cont act s wi t h T exas was i nsuff i ci ent t o est abl i sh gener al j ur i sdi ct i on, even t hough t he d ef endan t had negot i at ed t he c ont r act f ort r anspor t at i on o ft he d eceden t wi t h hi s em pl oy eri n T exas, pur chased appr oxi m at el y ei ght y per cent of i t s hel i copt erfl eet fr om a T exas sel l er , and sent pi l ot s and ot herper sonnel to T e x a s to b e tra i n e d ); see also I nt er net A dver

. , I nc. v. A ccudata, I nc. , N o. 05- 09- 00405
- C V, 2009 T ex. App. LEX I S 8859, at * 18 ( T ex. App. –D al l as Nov. 18, 200 9, no pet

. ) ( m em . op. ) ( con c l udi ng e v i dence t hat n o n re s i d e n t d e fe n d a n t "h a d th i rte e n c u s to m e rs [i n T e x a s ] fr o m w h i c h i t d e rive d l e s s th a n o n e p e rc e n t o f i ts re v e n u e s i s s i m p l y n o t s u ff i c i e n t t o e s ta b l i s h ' c o n ti n u o u s a n d s y s te m a ti c ' c o n ta c ts "); Arth Br ass & Al um inum C astings, I nc. v. H ar

sco Cor p. , 13- 03- 323- C V, 2 004 T ex. App. LEX I S 681, at * 3, 18- 20 ( T ex. App. –C or pus C hr i st i Jan. 23, 200 4, no pet

. ) ( m em . op. ) ( concl udi ng t hat t he p er cent age of1. 6 i n sal es byt he n onr esi dent def endan t t o t wo T exas com pani es wer e m i ni m al and t he nonr esi dent def endan t di d not " cont i nuousl y and s ys te m a tic a lly in v o k e t h e b e n e f its a n d p r o te c tio n s o fth e la w s o fth e S ta te o fT e x a s to th e e x te n t t h a t it c on s en t ed t o b ei ng su ed he re")

. 

## 9 cor porati on c ompri sed si g nific antl y l ess than 1% of

the total bus ine ss co nduct ed by [M cEl ro y M achi ne and DV CC ] dur ing the ti me per iod s rele v ant t o [F lores' s] cl aims ." The mini mum cont act s a nal y si s becomes more demandi ng w hen det er mini ng
w hether the nonresi dent defen d a n t h a s e sta bli shed g eneral jur is dicti on w it h the forum state ; the conta cts mu st be " subst ant ial." In othe r wo rd s , wh en gene ral jurisdiction is 29 

## all eg ed, t here mustbe "c onti nuous and sy ste mati c c ontacts" betw een t he nonresi dent defend antand Te x as. In the pre sentcase, th e b u s in e s s conta cts w ith T exas w ere 30 

## sporadi c and minimal at bestand are insuffici ent to suppor t gen eral personal j ur is dicti on. 31 

## Therefore, we c annot conc lu d e that c onti nuous and syste mati c c ontacts betw een ei ther Mc El ro y M achi ne or

D VC C and Tex as w ere es tabl is hed. 32 

## 2. Spec ificJu ri sdi cti onFl or es a l s o arg ues t hat C at chot " speci f i cal l y r ecogni z ed t he n am es of shr i m p bo at 33 m anuf act ur er s . . . i n Cam er on Count y , nam el y Zi m co M ar i ne and M ar i ne M ar t , as pur chaser s of wi nches f r om hi s com pany . " H owev er , F l or es does not al l ege t hat t he wi nch t hat al l egedl y i nj ur ed h i m was sol d i n T exas, and he d oes not cl ai m t hat Z i m co M ar i ne or M ar i ne M ar t bui l t t he M / V C apt

. Li nwood. T her ef or e, we do not f i nd t hi s ar gum ent per suasi v e. M or eov er , upon our r ev i ew of t he r ecor d, t her e i s no ev i dence t hat t he wi nch t hat al l egedl y cause d Fl or es' s i nj ur y was sol d i n T exas. T he ev i dence i n t he r ecor d est abl i shes t hat O M I , an A la b a m a c o r p o r a tio n th a t b u ilt th e M /V C a p t. L in w o o d , p u r c h a s e d w in c h e s f r o m M c E lr o y M a c h in e in M is s is s ip p i. T h e e v id e n c e d o e s n o t r e v e a l w h e th e r th e w in c h lo c a te d o n th e M /V C a p t. L in w o o d w a s a c tu a lly p u r c h a s e d f r o m e i t h e r Mc E l r o y Ma c h i n e o r DV CC.

M

. G

. M

. G ran d H otel

v. C as tro , 8 S

. W

. 3d 40 3, 40 9 (T ex . A pp . –C orp us C hri s t i 19 99 , no pe t

. ). 34 A s a h i M e ta l In s u s tryC o . v . S u p e rio r C o u rt o f C a l ., S o la n o C o u n ty , 48 0 U

. S

. 10 2, 11 2 (19 87 ). 35 C SR , 925 S. W

. 2d a t 595

. 36 I d. 37 Mi chiana , 168 S. W

. 3d a t 786

. 38 

## 10 Next, appel lan ts ass ert t hat F lores has not e sta b lished th at j ur is dicti on i s p ro per under the stream-o f-commerce theor y . Appel lan ts arg ue that they hav e taken no acti ons to pu rp osefull y

av ail thems elv es o f

t h e benefit s a nd protecti ons of Tex as law

. Fl ores count ers t hat p ersonal j ur is dicti on attac hed becau se it w as forese eabl e that the w inc hes sol d by appel lan ts w oul d reach Tex as. " 33 

## "Merely relea sing i nto the strea m of comm erce a prod uct t h a tco me s to rest in Tex as is not suffici ent t o es tabl ish jur is dicti on." Pl aci ng a producti nto t he s tream of 34


## commerce w it hout addi ti onal co nducti ndi cat ing an int ent to ser v e the mark et of the forum sta te i s n ot an act of the d e fendant pur poseful ly di re cte d toward the forum s tate. 35 

## "Alt h o ugh forese eab ility is a fa ctor to con sider in a min imu m con tacts a nalysis, forese eabi li ty

al one w il l not s uppor

t personal jur is dicti on." There must be s ome i ndi cat ion 36 

## that th e nonres ide nt de fendant i ntended to ser v e the Tex as mark et. The s tream of 37


## c om me rc e th eo r

y o f j ur i s di c ti on i s n ots at i s fi ed b y a sin gl e s al e or

a few s al es from a nonresi dent sel ler

bec ause itreq uires a "s tream" and not a "dr ibb le. " 38See Moki Mac , 221 S. W

. 3d a t 575
- 76. 39 I d. ; M i chiana , 168 S. W

. 3d a t 785

. 40 Ex ito E le c tro n ic s C o ., L TD v . Tre jo , 1 6 6 S .W .3 d 8 3 9 , 8 5 5 (T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti 2 0 0 5 , n o p e t.) 41 ( quot i ng C M M C v. Salinas , 92 9 S

. W

. 2d 43 5, 43 8 (T ex . 19 96 ))

.

C SR , 925 S. W

. 2d a t 595

. 42 

## 11 Mo re ov er , t he mere s ale of product s bya no nresi dent defendant t o a Tex as re si dent is not suffici ent t o c onfer ju ris dicti on. The ev ide nce must show thatthe nonresi dent 39 

## defendant t arg eted mark eti ng ef forts i n a s tate to g enerate b usi ness i n tha t s tate. W hen 40 

## a producti s p lac ed w it hin the s tr e a m o f co mmerc e, ad dit ion al condu ct mayi ndi cat e an int ent o r pur pose to s er v e the mar ketof the for um st ate, inc lud ing : (1 ) desi g nin g the productfor t he mar keti n the forum s tate; ( 2) adv erti si ng i n the forum s tate; ( 3) es tabl is hin g chann els for p ro v idi ng reg ula r adv ic e to cus tomers in the for um state; or (4) m ar ket ing the productthrough a d ist rib utor w ho has ag re ed to se rv e as the sal es ag ent i n the forum sta te. 41 

## Al thoug h we ac know led g e tha t fore seeab il ity i s o n lya fact or

to cons ide r in our mini mum cont act s a nal y sis and i t al one w il l not s uppor t personal j ur is dicti on, we c an cons ide r it

. H ere, ap pel lan ts manufactured w inc hes f o r sh ri mp boats , and i t w as

42 

## fo re s e e a b le t h a tt h e s e sh ri m p b o a t s wo u ld b e u s e d in T e xa s wa t e rs . T h e e vid e n c e sh o ws th a t app ell ants made s ale s o f component par ts for w inc hes to a Tex as cor porati on and used sal es ag ents to sol ic itthose sal es. This intentto ser v e the T ex as mark et c ombine d
w it h our co nsi derati on of the fact th at i t was forese eabl e to app e lla nts thatw inc hes they
ma nufactu red w ould reach th e T exas coast pe rsuad es us t h a ta ppe llants pu rpose f ully availed the mse lv es of

the T exas courts.M oki Mac , 221 S. W

. 3d a t 585

. 43 M ok i Mac , 2 2 1 S .W .3 d a t 5 7 9 , 5 8 8 (c o n c l u d i n g th a t t h e n o n re s i d e n t d e fe n d a n t h a d p u rp o s e f u lly 44 av ai l ed i t sel fof

T exas j ur i sdi ct i on u ndert he st r eam of com m er ce t heor y butt hat t he r el at i onshi p be t ween t he oper at i v e f act s of

t he l i t i gat i on a nd t he n onr esi dent def endan t ' s pr om ot i onal act i v i t i es i n T ex as wer e " t oo att en ua t ed t o s ati s fysp ec i fi c j uri s di c t i on ' s du e-p roc es s co nc ern s " ).

C SR , 925 S. W

. 2d a t 595

. 45 

## 12 Our ana ly sis, howev er, doe s not en d the re. Under spe cif ic jurisdiction, the re mu st be a subs tanti al conne cti on betw een the appel lan ts' co ntacts w it h the forum s tate and t he operati v e facts of the l it ig ati on. The ope ra ti ve fa ct s of this ca se are tha t F lores w as 43 

## injured byan allegedly defective w inch on the M/V Cap t. Linwood w hile in T exas w ate rs. How ever, it is undisp ute d tha t the w inch th at alleged ly cause d Flores's injurie s w as sold in Mississi ppi to an Alab am a shipb uilder, no t in T exas. Th erefore, th e w inch th at alleged ly inj ured Flo re s w as not connected to appell ants ' cont act s w it h T ex as. Al thoug h appel lan ts sol d c omponent w inc h parts to a T ex as cor porati on and at o ne ti me sol ic it ed s ale s t o tha t
co rp o ra t io n, th ese sa les are no t subst ant ially conn ecte d to th e op erative fa cts of this li ti g ati on. Therefore, based on t he record before us , w e conc lud e that appel lan ts' sa les

44 

## in Te x as w ere too atte nua ted to satisf y specif ic jurisdictions's due p ro c ess con cerns. Fur ther more, fores eeabi li ty al one w il l not s uppor

t personal j ur is dicti on. 45 

## 3. Other Bas is for J ur is dicti on Finally , app ellant s assert tha t perso nal j urisdiction cann ot be pred icated on Flores's
rema ining theo ries that: (1) in actions againsta seam an's em ployer fo r persona l injuries, Fl ores is req uired, p ursuantto mari ti me l aw , t o sue his employ er "onl y i n the di str ict of the
em ployer's reside nce o r principal place o f f ice " ; a nd (2) und er ma ritime law, a seama n is
cons ide re d a "ward " o f t h e co urt, and "[ a]ny

acts detr iment al to t he i nterestof the [ tr ialI n a s up pl em ent al br i eff i l ed wi t h l eav e of t hi s C our t , Fl or es ar gues t hat T exas h as pe r sonal 46 j ur i sdi ct i on o v erapp el l ant s beca use 2 8 U. S. C

. sect i on 1367 " m andat es t hat t he t r i al cour t cont i nue t o exe r ci se i t s j ur i sdi ct i on ov er t hi s pr oceedi ng. " Sect i on 1367 concer ns t he suppl em ent al j ur i sdi ct i on off eder al di st r i ct c o u r ts to h e a r c a s e s in v o lv in g s ta te c la im s th a t d e r iv e f r o m a c o m m o n n u c le u s o fo p e r a tiv e f a c ts a n d w o u ld b e e x p e c te d to b e trie d in o n e ju d i c i a l p ro c e e d i n g . S ee M otien t C orp . v. D on de ro , 269 S. W

. 3d 7 8, 87 ( T ex. App. –D al l as 20 08, no pet

. )

. I n ot her wor ds, sect i on 1367 per t ai ns t o t he f eder al di st r i ct cour t ' s subj ect m at t er j ur i s di c t i on . T her ef or e, sect i on 1 367 i s notr el ev ant t o ou r ana l y si s of t he st at e di st r i ct cour t ' s exer ci se of p e rs o n a l ju ris d i c ti o n o v e r a p p e l l a n ts

. See C SR , Lt d. , 925 S

. W

. 2d a t 594 ( " A cour t m ust posse ss bot h sub j ect m att er j uri s di c t i on ove r a ca s e a nd pe rso na l j uri s di c t i on ove r a pa rt y t o i s s ue a b i nd i ng j ud gm en t

. " ).

M i chiana , 168 S. W

. 3d at 785 ( " [ P] ur posef ul av ai l m ent ' ensur es t hat a def endan t wi l l notbe hal ed 47 i nt o a j ur i sdi ct i on sol el y as a r esul t of

. . . t he u ni l at er al act i v i t y of ano t herpar t y ora t hi r d pe r son. ' " ) ( quot i ng Bur ger King Cor

p. , 47 1 U

. S

. at 47 5) (i nterna l qu otat i on s om i t t ed ). 

## 13 c o u rt ' s ] wa rd a re vie we d wit h co n s id e ra b le su s p ic io n . " Fl o re s ci t e s n o a u t h o ri ty, a n d we 46 

## find none , t h at al lows a forum s tate to exerci se personal j ur is dicti on ov er a no nresi dent defendant merely

bec ause the p lai nti ff

i s a seaman. W hen deter mini ng w hether the forum has personal j ur is dicti on ov er the nonresi dent defendant, w e mustonl y co nsider t he
nonresi dent defendant' s c ontacts w it h th e for um st ate a nd notacts of a thi rd person or another party

. W e hav e already concl uded that t here i s n o g eneral or sp eci fic j ur is dicti on 47


## ov er appel lan ts in thi s cas e; therefore, ev en i f Fl ores must sue his empl oy er i n Tex as and is a ward of the sta te of Tex as for pur pose of federal suppl emental j ur is dicti on, t his i s n ot a bas is for p ersonal j ur is dicti on ov er appel lan ts in a s tate cour t. V. C ONCL US I ON 

## Ha vin g d e t e rm in e d t h a ta p p e ll a n t s n e ga t e d a ll p o s s ib le gro u n d s fo r ju ri s d ic t io n , we susta in their

so le is sue. W e rev erse the t ri al cour t' s o rd er deny ing appel lan ts' sp eci al appearance and render j udg ment di smi ss ing the cas e ag ain st appel lan ts for l ack of personal j ur is dicti on.

_________ _________

____ L in d a R. Ya ñ e z, J u s t i c e Del iv ered and filed the 1 1th d ay

of Febr uar

y , 201 0.