## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 0 8 - 0 0 9 - CV GLE NC O E CA PI TAL P ARTN ERS I I , L . P. , APPE L L AN TS T E R E N C E S . M A L O N E , L O U IS J . M A N E T T I, R I CH AR D A . CO ONR OD, DA VI D S . E VAN S , AN D R ONAL D D . W R AY V . HA ROLD G ERNSBACH ER, RE UBEN N. PAL M , APPE L L EE S M I CH AE LN. P AL M , S HAN NON P AL M , J AM E S G. PA LM , SU S A N PA LM , M A R K R. PA LM , PA M ELA P A L M, T H O MA S L . P A L M, MA U R E E N P A L M, R I CH AR D F . P AL M , K R I S T I N P AL M , R OB E R TN. Z I NT GR AF F , AN D Z I NT GR AF FI NVE S T M E NT S , L T D. ( B Y Z I NT GR AF FM ANA GE M E NTT R US TAN D RO BERT N . ZI N TG RA FF, TRU STEE)

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 141STDI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

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

### OP I NI ON

----- ----- -- I n t hi s i nt er l ocutory appeal , A ppel l ant s chal l enge t he t r i al court ’ s or der
o v e rru l i n g th e i r s p e c i a l a p p e a ra n c e s . W e a ffir m .2

I . Back gr ound Thi s ca sear i se s f r om a se r i esofco m p l e x trans ac t i onsi nvol vi ng t he acqui si t i on and f i nanci ng of sever al f ood servi ce equi pm ent suppl y com pani es. F o llo w in g a r e t h e a lle g a t io n sa n d ju r is d ic t io n a l f a c t sre le v a n tt o t h isa p p e a l. A . A ppe l l ee s’A l l ega t i ons A ppel l ees— G er nsbacher , Zi nt gr af f , and th e Pal m s— ar e f or m er s h a r e h o ld e r sin w h a tw e r e in d e p e n d e n tf o o d s e rv ic e e q u ip m e n ts u p p ly
c o m p a n i e s . G e r n s b a c h e r , a T e x a sre s id e n t , w a sa s h a r e h o ld e rin G er nsbacher ’ s, I nc. , a Texas cor por at i on based i n Fort W ort h. Zi nt gr af f , al so a Texas r esi dent, w as a s har ehol deri n T op of t he T abl e, I nc. , a Texas
c o rp o ra ti o n b a s e d i n S a n A n to n i o . T h e P a l m s , a l l M i n n e s o ta re s i d e n ts , w e re shar ehol der s i n Pal m Br ot her s, I nc. , a cor por at i on based i n M i nnesota. In 2 0 0 0 , S tra te g i c E q u i p m e n t a n d S u p p l yC o rp o ra ti o n (“S E S C ” ), a D e la w a r e c o r p o r a t io n w it h it s c o r p o r a t e o f f ic e sin A r iz o n a b e f o r e 2 0 0 1 a n d in D al l as af t er , acqui r ed G er nsbacher ’ s, To p oft he T abl e, Pal m Br ot her s, and ot her f ood s ervi ceeq ui pm ent su ppl y c om pan i es . Appel l antG l enc oe Part ner s I I , L. P. (“G l e n c o e ”), w h o se g e n e ral p a rt n e r r e side s i n I l l i n o i s, w a s S E S C ’s m aj o ri ty sh ar eho l der . An i nve st m entgr oup l ed by G l enc oe f i nan ce d SESC ’ s ac qui si t i on of t he com pan i es , and La Sal l e Bank and ot her s pr ovi ded add i t i ona l fi nan ci ng. G er ns bac her , Zi nt gr af f , and t he Pal m s r ec ei ved a col l ec t i ve t ot alof$8. 2 m i l l i on1 ... A ppel l ant Evans, an I l l i noi s r esi dent and G l encoe’ s C EO , served as an

S ES C di r ect or f r om S ept em ber20 00 t hr oug h M ar ch 2 00 2 an d as SES C ’ s vi ce p r e s id e n tf r o m J a n u a ry 2 0 0 0 t h o u g h 2 0 0 5 . A p p e lla n tM a n e t t i (a ls o a n Illin o is r es i den t ) ha s bee n a m em berofG l enc oe C api t al ’ s se ni orm ana gem ents i ncet he su m m erof2001 an d s erved asan SESC di r ec t or f r om N ove m ber2001 t hr ough M a rc h 2 0 0 2 . 3 i n S E S C s t o c k p l u s n o t e s ma d e b y S E S C i n t h e o r i g i n a l a g g r e g a t e a mo u n tof $ 9 .5 m i l l i o n (“t h e S h a re h o l d e r N o te s ” ). A f t ert he acqui si t i ons, S ES C ’ s ni ne- m em ber boar d ofdi r ect or s consi st ed
o f th re e G l e n c o e e m p l o y e e s , i n c l u d i n g A p p e l l a n t W ra y (a n Il l i n o i s r e s i d e n t); t hr eem em ber s oft he “Gl enc oe Exe cut i ve N etw o rk ” (a gr oup o fs eni or exe cut i vespool ed by Gl enc oe t o s erve atG l enc oe’ s pl ea su r e o n t he boa r dsof G l encoe- contr ol l ed com pani es) , i ncl udi ng A ppella n t s M al one ( a M i chi gan re s i d e n t) a n d C o o n ro d (a M i n n e s o ta re s i d e n t); a n d th re e fo rm e r s h a re h o l d e rs o ft h e a c q u ir e d c o m p a n ie s , n a m e ly , G e r n s b a c h e r , Z in t g r a f f , a n d M ik e P a lm . 1 Ger ns ba c he ra nd Zi nt gr a f f c on t i nu e d t o r un t he i r r e s pe c t i ve “ di vi s i on s ” o fSE SC fro m th e i r o ffice si n F o rt W o rth a n d S a n A n to n i o . S E S C f a i l e d to p e rf o rm as w e l l as ex p e c ted . A p p e l l a n ts rep res e n ted to A p p e l l e e s i n S e p tem b e r 2 0 0 1 tha t La S a l l e B a n kh a d d e m a n d e d an i m m e d i a te
a d d i ti o n a l eq u it y in v e stm e n t of $ 6 m i l l i o n as a c o n d i ti o n o f m a i n tai n i n g i ts
r el at i ons hi p w i t h SESC . A ppe l l ant s dec i ded t o r ai se t he equ i ty i n v e st m ent4

t hr ough t he sa l e o fad di t i ona l not es( “t he N ew N ot es ”) . The eve nt s su r r oundi ng th e i s s u a n c e o f th e N e w N o te sl i e a t th e h e a rt o f A p p e l l e e s ’ c l a i m s . G l e n c o e en l i ste d a C h i c a g o i n v e stm e n t b a n k i n g fi rm , L i n c o l n P a rt n e rs, t o pr epar e a “f ai rn e ss opi ni on” concer ni ng t he f ai r ness oft he N ew N ot es t r ans ac t i on t o SESC ’ s sh ar eho l der s. Appel l ee s al l eget hatLi nco l n ha d e xt ens i ve ti e s to G l e n c o e a n d w a sn o t i n d e p e n d e n t a n d i m p a rti a l , d e s p i te L i n c o l n ’s
a s s e rt i on st o t hec on t r a ry. L i nc ol n f ur ni s he d t hr e e f a i r ne s so pi ni on st o SES C
s h a re h o l d e rsi n N o v e m b e r a n d D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 1 . A ppe l l ee s con t end t hatA ppe l l ant s or al l y m i sr epr es ent ed t he nat ur e a nd ef f ectoft he N ew N ot e s in m u lti pl e SE S C boar d m eet i ngs, i n w hi ch G er nsbacherand Z i nt gr af fpartic i pat ed by t el epho ne f r om Texas, and t hat A ppel l ant s and Li ncol n m i sr epr esent ed t he t er m s of t he N ew N ot es i n w r i t i ngs, i nc l ud i ng t he f a i r ne s s op i ni on s , t ha t Appe l l a nt s a nd L i nc ol n m a i l e d to G er nsbacherand Z i nt gr af fi n Tex as. A ppel l ees al l ege t hat , am ong ot hert hi ngs, A p p e l l a n ts rep res e n ted tha t t h e N e w N o tes w o u l d b e p a i d i f S E S C so l d allo f i ts
as se t s. Theyf urt her al l ege t hatA ppe l l ant s l at ers ec r et l y c han ged t he t er m s of t he N ew N ot est o m ak e t hem pa y a bl e i n t he eve ntofa sa l e o nl y i f80% or
m or e o ft he hol der s oft he N ew N ot esap pr ove d pa ym ent . Ge rn s b a c h e ran d Zi nt gr af fevent ual l y pur chased a t ot a l of$2 75 , 00 0 w ort h oft he N ew N ot es5

w hen t he notesw er e i ssued i n M ar ch 20 02 . G l encoe pu r chased orcont r ol l ed 8 0 % o f th e N e w N o te s . SES C s ol d a l l o fi t so pe r a t i ng a s s e t s t o SES C Acq ui s i t i on , I nc . i n 2005. S ES C pai d nothi ng t o G er nsbacher , Zi nt gr af f , and t he Pal m s on t he S har ehol der N o te s , a n d i t p a i d n o th i n g to G e rn s b a c h e r a n d Z i n tg ra ff o n th e N e w N o te s . A ppe l l ee s su ed A ppe l l ant s and ot her s i n Tar r ant C ount y, Texa s, al l egi ng ca u s e s o f ac t i on f orbr ea ch off i duc i ary du t i es , f r aud , an d vi ol at i on oft he f r audu l entt r ansf er s act . The gi st of t hei r al l egat i ons i s t hatA ppel l ant s col l uded t o r ende r w o rt hl ess t he S ES C st ock and no t es hel d by A ppel l ees. A ppel l ees seek act ual dam ages, exem pl ary dam ages, and r ecessi on of t he N ew N ot es. B. S peci alA ppear ances A p p e l l a n ts fi l e d s p e c i a l a p p e a ra n c e s , see Tex . R . C i v. P. 12 0a, and each i ndi vi dual A ppel l ant f i l ed a suppo rt i ng af f i davi t . I n hi s af f i davi t , C oon r od st at ed t ha th e ha d pa rt i c i pa t e d i n s e ve r a l SE SC bo a r d m e e t i ng sb e t w e e n Augu s t2001
a n d F e b r u a ry2 0 0 2 ; G e r n s b a c h e ra n d Z in t g r a f fp a rt ic ip a t e d b yt e le p h o n e in
sever al oft he boar d m eet i ngs; C oon r od di d not know t he l ocat i ons f r om w hi ch ei t herG er nsbacherorZi nt gr af fpart i ci pat ed i n t he t el epho ni c m eet i ngs; he never t el eph one d Ger ns bac herorZi nt gr af ff oran y SESC boa r d m ee t i ng; hedi d not d raft d o c u m e n ts rel a ted to th e N e w N o tes ; a n d h e d i d n o t m a i l an yd o c u m e n ts
r el at ed t o th e N e w N ot es t o G er nsbacherorZi nt gr af f . M al one’ s, M anet t i ’ s,6

W r ay’ s, and Evan s’ s af f i davi t s r e c i t e t he sam e essent i al aver m ent s as C o o n ro d ’s , e x c e p t M a l o n e ’s e x p l a i n s th a t h e s e rv e d a s c h a i rm a n o f S E S C ’s b o a rd from J a n u a ry 2 0 0 0 u n ti l e a rl y 2 0 0 5 a n d sta ted tha t w h i l e h e d i d d raft a le t t e rc o n c e r n in g t h e N e w N o t e st h a tw a ss e n tt o a ll S E S C s h a r e h o ld e r sin January 200 2, he di d not dr aftorpr epar e o th e rm at er i al s r el at ed t o t he N ew N o te s . A ppe l l ant s al so s ubm i t t ed th e a f f i dav i tofBet h A. Satt erf i el d, G l enc oe C api t al ’ s C FO and C O O and S ES C ’ s f or m erassi st antsecr et ary. She st at ed t hat pr i ort o each S ES C boar d m eet i ng, a t ol l
- f r ee t el epho ne num berw as ci r cul at ed t o t he potent i al part i ci pants , i ncl udi ng G er nsbacher and Zi nt gr af f , so t hatt hey
c o u l d c a l l i n to th e m e e ti n g . G e r n s b a c h e rt e s t if ie d a tt h e h e a r in g o n t h e s p e c ia l a p p e a r a n c e s . H e s a id t hataft erSE S C acqui r ed G er ns b acher ’ s, I nc. , he cont i nued t o w or k at Ge r n s b a c h e r ’ sa sa d i v i s i o n o fS E S C a n d s e rv e d a sa n S E S C d i r e c t o r . He t est i f i ed t hathe part i ci pa te d in S ES C boar d m eet i ngs t el epho ni cal l y. W hen
as ke d w h e therhew asi n Tex asdur i ng t he m ee t i ngs , het es t i f i ed t hathe

“ p r e s u me [ d ] [ h e ] wa si n T e x a s. . . t h a t ’ swh e r e[ h e ] n o r ma l l y[ wa s ] . ” He f urt hert est i f i ed t hat“nor m al l y [ t he di r ect or s] had a f ew m i nutesw her e [ t hey
w o u l d ] ta l kb e fo re th e m e e ti n g s , a n d [th e y ] w o u l d d i s c u s sw h e re p e o p l e w e re and w hatt heyw er e d oi ng. ” G er ns bac hers a i d t hatA ppe l l ant s m ade7

m i sr epr es ent at i onsdur i ng t hes e m ee t i ngs con ce r ni ng t he st at e o fSESC an d t he N e w N o te stra n s a c ti o n . Z i n tg raff t e sti fi e d v i a affi d a v i t. H e av e rr e d tha t a l l i n d i v i d u a l A p p e l l a n ts
w e re fu l l ya w a re th a t b o th T o p o fth e T a b l e a n d G e rn s b a c h e r’s , I n c . w e re l o c a ted i n T e x a s a n d h a d the i r pri n c i p a l o ffi c e s in T e x a s a n d tha t bo th G e r n s b a c h e ra n d Z in t g r a f fw e r e T e x a s r e s id e n t s . Z in t g r a f fd e s c r ib e d in d e t a il
a ser i es of boar d m eet i ngs bet w een O ct ober20 01 and Febr uar y 20 02 , i n w hi ch he part i ci pat ed by t el eph one f r om hi s San Ant oni o of f i ce . He st at ed t hatdur i ng t he m eet i ngs, each of t he i ndi vi dual A ppel l ant s m i sr epr esent ed S ES C ’ s f i nanci al
con di t i on a nd t he su ppos edl y ur gen tne ed f orne w ca pi t alatt he i ns i st enc e o f La Sal l e. Zi nt gr af fav er r ed t hatt he i ndi vi dua l A ppe l l an ts e i therm ade
m is r e p r e s e n t a t io n s , f a ile d t o c o r r e c tm is r e p r e s e n t a t io n s , o rd i r e c t e d h is att ent i on t o w r i t t en m i sr epr es ent at i onsco nce r ni ng t he N ew N ot esdur i ng ph one c o n fe re n c e si n w h i c h h e p a rti c i p a te d fro m T e x a s . O n D ecem ber21 , 20 07 , t he t r i al courtdeni ed al l ofA ppel l ant s’ speci al app ea r anc es . Thi s app ea l f ol l ow ed. II. D i sc us si on A ppel l ant s ar gue t hatt he t r i al courter r e d b y denyi ng t hei rspeci al appear ances ( 1) because t her e i s l egal l y and f act ual l y i nsuf f i ci ent evi dence t hat t h e yp u r p o s e f u lly a v a ile d t h e m s e lv e s o f t h e p r iv ile g e o fc o n d u c t in g a c t iv it ie sin2 ... I n t h e i rf i r s ti s s u e , Ap p e l l a n t sa g u e t h a tt h e t r i a l c o u rtl a c k sg e n e r al

j ur i sdi ct i on ov ert hem . A ppel l ees di d not al l ege gener al j ur i sdi ct i on i n t he t r i al c o u rta n d h a v e n o tb r ie f e d ito n a p p e a l. T h e r e f o r e , a n d b e c a u s e w e u lt im a t e ly det er m i ne t hatt he t r i al court had speci f i c j ur i sdi ct i on over A ppel l ant s, w e need n o t a d d re s sg e n e ra l j u ri s d i c ti o n o r A p p e l l a n ts ’ fi rs t i s s u e . S ee Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 1. 8 Tex as and A ppel l ees’ cl ai m s do not ar i se out of any contact s A ppel l ant s m ay hav e m adew i t h Tex as , an d ( 2) be ca us e t he exe r ci seofpe r so nalj ur i sd i ct i on does not com portw i t h t he due pr ocess r equi r em ent s off ai rpl ay and subst ant i al j ust i ce. 2 A . Bu r den of Pl eadi ng and Standar d ofRev i ew T h e p l a i n ti ff b e a rs th e i n i ti a l b u rde n o f plea d i n g su ffi c i e n t al l e g a ti o n s 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 so f th e T e x a s l o n g -a rm s ta tu te . Moki

MacRiver

Exp editi

onsv. D rugg , 221 S. W . 3d 569 , 574 ( Tex. 2 0 0 7 ); BM CSoft ware Bel g. , N. V. v. Marchand, 83 S. W . 3d 7 8 9 , 793 ( Tex. 200 2) ; T

ra ve lJungle v. A m . A i r l i nes, I nc. , 212 S . W . 3d 841, 845 ( Tex. A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 6 , n o p e t.); Mi chel v. Rocket

Eng’ g Cor p. , 45 S . W . 3d 65 8, 66 8 ( Tex . A pp. — FortW ort h 2 00 1, n o p e t . ) . U pon f i l i ng a speci al
a p p e a r a n c e , t h e n o n r e s id e n td e f e n d a n ta s s u m e st h e b u r d e n o fn e g a t in g a ll b a s e s o f p e rs o n a l j u ri s d i c ti o n a l l e g e d b yth e p l a i n ti ff. A m . Ty p eCulture Col lecti on, I nc. v. Colem an , 83 S. W . 3d 801, 807 ( Tex. 2002 ) , c e rt. denied, 537 U . S. 1191 ( 200 3) . I n ot herw or ds , t he d e fe nda ntm us tdi sp r ovet he9

exi st ence ofm i ni m um cont act s suf f i ci entt o est abl i sh per sonal j ur i sdi ct i on ov er i t— g e n e ral , sp e c i fi c , o r bo th

— a s a l le g e d b ythe p l a i n ti ff. Seei d. Absen t al l ega t i onsof any sp ec i f i c, pur pos ef ul ac tt hr ough w hi ch t he def end antca n be sai d t o have soug hta benef i tby avai l i ng i t sel fof t he j ur i sdi ct i on, evi dence t hat
a d e fe n d a n t i sa n o n re s i d e n t i s s u f fi c i e n t to m e e t i ts b u rd e n . Mi chi ana Easy Livi n’ Coun try, I

nc. v. Holten , 1 6 8 S .W .3 d 7 7 7 , 7 8 5 (T e x . 2 0 0 5 ); see al so Hotel Partners v. KPM GPeatMarwi ck , 847 S . W . 2d 630, 633 ( Tex. A p p .— D a l l a s1 9 9 3 , w ri t d e n i e d ). 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 . Marchand, 8 3 S .W .3 d a t 7 9 3 ; T ra velJungle , 21 2 S . W . 3d at 8 4 5 . H o w e v e r, th e tri a l c o u rt m u s t fre q u e n tl yre s o l v e fa c t q u e s ti o n sb e fo re dec i di ng t he j ur i sd i ct i ona l que st i on. Marchand, 83 S. W . 3d at 794 . W hen t he t r i al courtdoes notent erexpr ess f i ndi ngs off actand concl usi ons ofl aw
r egar di ng i t s r ul i ng on a speci al appear ance, t he r evi ew i ng cou rti nf er s al l f act f i ndi ngs necessary t o suppo rtt he j udg m entt hatar e support ed by t he evi dence. Id. a t 7 9 4

– 9 5 . W h e n th e a p p e l l a te re c o rd i n c l u d e sth e re p o rte r’sa n d c l e rk ’s
r ec or ds , t hes e i m pl i ed f i ndi ng s ar e n otco ncl us i ve and m ay be cha l l eng ed f or l e g a l a n d fa c tu a l s u fficie n c y i n th e a p p ro p ri a te a p p e l l a te c o u rt. Se ei d. a t795; T ra velJungle , 2 1 2 S .W .3 d a t 8 4 5 ; Mi chel, 45 S. W . 3d at 668 . I ft he r evi ew i ng cou rtde t er m i nest hatt he t r i alco urt ’ s f i ndi n g s a re su pport ed by s uf f i ci ent10

evi dence, ori ft he m at er i al fa c ts ar e undi sput ed, t he r evi ew i ng cou rtdeci des
as a m at t erofl aw w het hert hose f act s negat e al l bases f orper sonal j u ri s d i c ti o n . Marchand, 83 S . W . 3d a t794– 95. B. Specif i c J ur i sd i ct i on T he Texa s l ong- ar m st at ut e aut hor i z es per so nal j ur i sd i ct i on o v e r a
n o n r e s id e n td e f e n d a n tw h o “ d o e sb u s in e s s ” in T e x a s , w h ic h s p e c if ic a lly i ncl udes com m i t t i ng a t orti n T exas, i n w hol e ori n part . Tex. C i v. Pr ac. & Rem . C odeA nn. § 1 7 .0 4 2 (1 ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 8 ); T ra velJungle , 212 S . W . 3d at845. But t he st at ut e’ s br oad, doi ng- busi ness l angu age r eaches onl y as fa r a s f eder al due
- pr oce sscr i t er i a p er m i t ; t he def end antm us tha ve es t abl i sh ed m i ni m um c o n ta c ts w i th th e fo ru m s ta te , a n d th e a s s e rti o n o f j u ri s d i c ti o n m u s t c o m p o rt
w i t h “t r adi t i onal noti ons off ai rpl ay and subst ant i al j ust i ce. ” IRA Res . , I nc. v. Gr i ego , 221 S . W . 3d 592, 596 ( Tex. 2007 ) ( ci t i ng Marchand, 8 3 S . W . 3 d at 7 9 5 ); s e ea l

s o Schl o b o hm v. Sch ap i

ro , 7 8 4S .W .2 d 3 5 5 , 3 5 6 (T e x . 1 9 9 0 ). 1 . M i n i m u m C o n tac ts W h e n a p l a i n ti ff a ss e rt s s p e c i fi c j u ri sd i c ti o n , th e m in i m u m co n tac ts
ana l ys i s f ocu se s on t he r el at i ons hi p be t w ee n t he def end ant , t he f or um , an d t he l i ti g a ti o n . IRA Res. , 2 2 1 S .W .3 d a t 5 9 6 ; Moki Mac , 221 S. W . 3d a t575– 76. M i ni m um co nt ac t s ar e s uf f i ci entf orpe r so nal j ur i sd i ct i on w hen t he nonr es i den t def endan t“pur posef ul l y avai l s” i t sel fof th e p r i vi l ege ofcondu ct i ng act i vi t i es11

w i t hi n t he f or um st at e, t hus i nvoki ng t he benefi t s and pr ot ect i ons ofi t s l aw s. Han so n v. D en ckla , 3 5 7 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 ); IRA Res. , 221 S. W . 3d a t596; Mi chi ana , 168 S. W . 3d at784. Pur pos ef ul av ai l m ent is th e “t ouch st one of j ur i sdi ct i onal due pr ocess. ” IRA Res. , 22 1 S . W . 3d at 5 9 6 ; Mi chi ana , 168 S. W . 3d a t784. P u rp o s e fu l a v a i l m e n t h a sa t l e a s t th re ea s p e c ts . IRA Res. , 221 S. W . 3d
a t 5 9 6 ; Mi

chi ana , 1 6 8 S .W .3 d at 7 8 5 . F ir st, on l ythe d e fen d a n t’ s c o n tac ts
w i th th e fo ru m a re re l e v a n t, n o t th e u n i l a te ra l a c ti v i tyo f a n o th e r p a rtyo r th i rd p e rs o n . IRA Res. , 2 2 1 S .W .3 d a t 5 9 6 ; Mi chi ana , 168 S . W . 3d at785. Sec ond, t he con t ac t s r el i e d upon m us tbepur pos ef ul r at hert han r and om , i so l at ed, or fo rtu i to u s . IRA R es. , 2 2 1 S .W .3 d a t 5 9 6 ; Mi chi ana , 168 S. W . 3d a t785. Thi r d, t he def end antm us t se eks om e b ene f i t , ad van t age , orpr of i tby “a vai l i ng” i ts e l f o f th e j u ri s d i c ti o n , th u si m p l i e d l yc o n s e n ti n g to i ts l a w s . IRA Res. , 221 S .W .3 d a t 5 9 6 ; Mi

chi ana , 1 6 8 S .W .3 d a t 7 8 5 . I n t hi s ca se , t he pr i nci pal con t ac t s bet w ee n Appel l ant s and Texa s r el eva nt t o speci f i c j ur i sdi ct i on ar e t he t el epho ni c boar d m eet i ngs, i n w hi ch G er nsbacher
a n d Z in t g r a f f p a rt ic ip a t e d f r o m T e x a s a n d d u r in g w h ic h A p p e lla n t sa l l e g e d ly
m adem i sr epr es ent at i onsr ega r di ng SESC ’ s f i nan ci al con di t i on and t he t er m s of th e N e w N o te s . W e m u s t, th e re fo re , d e te rm i n e w h e th e r th e te l e p h o n i c b o a rd
m e e ti n g s ri se to th e l e v e l o f pu rpo se fu l av a i l m e n t.12

A l th o u g h th e s u p re m e c o u rt h a sd i s a p p ro v e d “ o p i n i o n sh o l d i n g th a t . . . speci f i c j ur i sdi ct i on i s n e c essa r ily e sta b l i sh e d b yall e g a ti o n s o r ev i d e n c e tha t a
n o n re s i d e n t c o m m i tte d a to rt i n a te l e p h o n e c a l l fro m a T e x a sn u m b e r,” Mi chi ana , 16 8 S .W .3 d a t 79 1– 92 ( em phasi s added) , i thas nothel d t hat t el epho ne cal l s ar e never su f f i ci entt o e st abl i sh m i ni m um co nt ac t s. I n Mi chi ana , a Texas r esi dent at t em pt ed t o sue an I ndi ana sel l erofm ot orhom es i n a Tex as cou rt , as se rt i ng a s t he bas i s f ors pec i f i c j u r i sd i ct i on m i sr epr es ent at i onst he
se l l e r al l e g e d l ym a d e d u ri n g a sing l e p h o n e ca l l i n i ti a ted b ythe T e x a s re side n t. Id. at784. The su pr em e c ourt not ed t hat “c han ges i n t ec hnol ogy hav e m ade
r el i ance on ph one cal l s obsol et e as pr oof of pur posef ul avai l m ent . ” Id . a t791. The ph oneca l l i n Mi

chi anas at i sf i ed noneoft he t hr eeke y as pec t s ofpur pos ef ul
ava i l m ent : t he se l l er ’ s con t ac tw i t h Tex as r es ul t ed notf r om i t s ow n a ct i vi t y bu t f r om t he Texa s r es i den t ’ s uni l at er alac t i vi t y, na m el y, t he phoneca l l i ni t i at ed by t h e T e x asr es i den t ; t he se l l er ’ s con t ac tw i t h Tex asw asnotpur pos ef ul but i so l at ed and f ort ui t ous ; an d t he se l l erdi d n o t “a vai l ” i t se l foft he pr i vi l egeof d o i n g b u s i n e s si n T e x a s . See i d. a t 7 8 5 . B u tw h ile t h e s e lle r ’s s o le t e le p h o n ic contactw i t h T exas f el l short of pur posef ul avai l m ent , t he supr em e court ’ s use o f th e m o d i fi e r “ n e c e s s a ri l y ” i n i ts d i s a p p ro v a l o f “ o p i n i o n sh o l d i n g th a t . . . speci f i c j ur i sdi ct i on i s n e c essa r ilyes tab l i sh e d b y a l l e g a ti o n s o r e v i d e n c e th a t a
n o n re s i d e n t c o m m i tte d a to rt i n a te l e p h o n e c a l l fro m a T e x a s n u m b e r”13

su gge st s t hatt el eph oni c c ont ac tm ay r i set o t he l eve l ofpur pos ef ul av ai l m ent i n d i ffe re n t c i rc u m s ta n c e s . See i d. a t791– 92. Th e ci r c u m s tan ces oft hi s case ar e m ar kedl y di f f er entf r om t he si ngl e, uns ol i ci t ed, uni l at er alphon e c al l i n Mi chi a n a . I n s t e a d o f Mi chi a n a ’ss in g le pho ne cal l , t hi s case i nvol ves m a ny t el epho ni c boar d m eet i ngs atr egul ar i n terv a l s o v e r a sp a n o f y e a rs— e v e n i f w e l i m i t t h e sc o p e o f r e l e v a n t co n tac ts t o t hose i n 2 00 1 an d 2 00 2 w hen t he part i es di s c u s s e d th e N ew N ot es, as A ppe l l ant s ar gue w e m us t . U nl i ket he se l l eri n Mi chi ana , w ho di d not advert i se o r oth e rw i se se e kb u sine ss fr o m T e x a s re side n ts, A p p e l l a n ts (ac c o rding to A ppe l l ee s’ pe t i t i on) s oughtt o i nduc e Te xasr es i d e n ts— G er ns bac heran d Zi nt gr af f

— t o subscr i be t o t he N ew N ot es. O ne si m i l ar i t y be t w ee n Michi anaand t hi s case— a si m i l ar i t y t hat A p p e lla n t sa r g u e n e g a t e ss p e c if ic j u r i s d i c t io n — ist h a tn e it h e rt h e s e lle rin Mi chi anan o r th e A p p e ll a n ts in th i s c a s e p l a c e d p h o n e c a ll sto T e x a s . In Mi chi ana , th e T e x a s re s i d e n t p l a c e d th e c a l l to th e s e l l e r i n In d i a n a . Id. a t781. In th i s c a s e , S E S C c i rc u l a te d a to l l -fre e p h o n e n u m b e r to th e b o a rd m e m b e rs b e fo re th e b o a rd m e e ti n g s, a n d th e b o a rd m e m b e rs w o u l d ca l l tha t nu m b e r t o part i ci pat e i n t he m eet i ng. A ppel l ant s aver r ed in t hei rspeci al
- appear ance af f i dav i t s t hat t hey di d notkn ow w her e Zi nt gr af fan d Ger ns bac herw er e d ur i ng14

t he t el eph oni c b oar d m ee t i ngs , and G er ns bac herco nce ded t hatheco ul d ha ve p h o n e d i n to th e m e e ti n g sfro m a n ys ta te . Butag ai n, t he di f f er enc esbe t w ee n t hi s ca sean d Mi chi ana out w ei gh t he si m i l ar i t i es . U nl i ke t he one - t i m e, uns ol i ci t ed, f ort ui t oust r ans ac t i on be t w ee n t he
se l l er and t he Texa s r es i den ti n Mi chi ana , A ppe l l ant s had a l ong- t i m e, ongo i ng
r el at i onshi p w i t h G er nsbacherand Z int gr af f , w hom t hey knew t o be T exas
r e s id e n t s a n d w h o m t h e y k n e w o p e r a t e d t h e F o rtW o rt h a n d S a n A n t o n io d i v i s i o n s o f S E S C . S ee Bur ger K i ng Cor p. v. Ru dzewi

cz , 471 U. S. 462, 470, 105 S. Ct . 2174 , 2181 ( 198 5) ( not i ng l ong- t er m r el at i ons hi p bet w ee n Fl or i da f r anchi sorand M i chi gan f r anchi see as si gni f i cantf act ori n subj ect i ng f r anchi see t o Fl or i da j ur i sdi ct i on) . M or eover , t o t he ext en t th a t i tm akes a di f f er ence
w het herA ppe l l ant s kne w w her e Ger ns bac heran d Z i nt gr af fw er e d ur i ng t he boa r d m ee t i ngs , t he r ec or d con t ai nsev i den ces how i ng t hatt hey di d know t hat G e rns b a c h e r an d Z i n tg raff ca l l e d in t o the m e e ti n g s from T e x a s. Z i n tg raff t e s t if ie d t h a th e a lw a y sp a rt ic ip a t e d in t h e m e e t in g sf r o m h i sS a n A n t o n io of f i ce; G er nsbac h e r t est i f i ed t hathe part i ci pat ed f r om hi s FortW ort h of f i ce
m os toft he t i m e; an d Ger ns bach e rt es t i f i ed t hat“ nor m al l y [ t he boa r d] ha d a f e w m in u t e sw h e r e [t h e y w o u ld ] t a lkb e f o r e t h e m e e t in g s , a n d [t h e y ] w o u ld t a lk abou tw her e peopl e w er e and w hatt hey w er e doi ng. ”15

E v e n i f A p p e l l a n ts d i d n o t kn o w th a t G e rns b a c h e r an d Z i n tg raff p a rt i c i p a ted i n the m e e ti n g s from T e x a s, th a t i g n o ran c e a l o n e i s n o t en o u g h to
n e g a te s p e c i fi c j u r is d ic t i o n b e c a u se i t w a s fo res e e a b l e tha t t h e i r ac ti v i ty d ire c te d to w a rd sT e x a sre s id e n ts w o u ld s u bje c t t h e m to T e x a sju ris d ic tio n . In T ra velJungle , w e h e ld t h a tt h e f o r e ig n d e f e n d a n t , T r a v e lJ u n g le , p u r p o s e f u lly
ava i l ed i t se l f of t he pr i vi l ege ofco nduc t i ng a ct i vi t y i n Tex asby ac ce ss i ng t he A m er i ca n Ai r l i ne’ s com put ers erver s i n Tex asvi a t he I nt er netev en t hough T ra v e l J u n g l e c l a i m e d th a t i t d i d n o t k n o w w h e re A m e ri c a n ’ss e rv e rsw e re lo c a t e d : “ B yd e lib e r a t e lyd ir e c t in g it s a c t iv it yt o w a r d A A .c o m , T r a v e lJ u n g le sh oul d ha ve bee n aw ar e of t he pos si bi l i t y t hati tw oul d beha l ed i nt o a ny f or um
w he r e AA . c om ’ ss e rve r sw e r e l oca ted . ” 212 S. W . 3d a t841, 850, 851. Li ke w i se , by del i ber at el y di r ec t i ng t hei rac t i vi t y t ow ar d Ger n s b ac heran d Zi nt gr af f

— w hom t heykn ew t o be T e x a s r es i den t s— A ppe l l ant s sh oul d ha ve bee n a w ar e o ft he pos si bi l i t y t hatt heyw oul d bes ubj ec tt o Tex asj ur i sd i ct i on, even i f t hey di d not know w her e G er nsbacherand Z i nt gr af fw er e att he pr eci se
m om ent s t hatA ppe l l ant s al l ege dl y m adem i sr epr es en ta ti onsdur i ng t he t el epho ni c boar d m eet i ngs. Th e phr ase “di r ect i ng t hei ract i vi t y” l eads us t o a key partofA ppel l ant s’
ar gum ent . A ppel l ant s ar gue t hat t he basi s f orj ur i sdi ct i on assert ed by A ppel l ees i s t hatA ppe l l ant s “d i r ec t ed a t ort ” att he t w o T e x a s pl ai nt i f f s— a t heo ry of16

sp ec i f i c j ur i sd i ct i on t hat t he su pr em e c ourtr ej ec t ed i n Mi chi ana . I n Mi

chi ana , t he s u p r e me c o u rtn o t e d t h a td i r e c t e d
- a - t o rtj u r i s d i c t i o n — t h a ti s , j u r i s d i ct i on based on w h e re t he ef f ectofa def endan t ’ s t orti s f el t
— causes sever al pr obl em s. 168 S .W . 3d at790. Fi r st , i ts hi ft s t he cou rt ’ s f ocu s f r om t he
r el at i onshi p am ong t he def endant, t he f or um , an d t he l i t i gat i o n t o t he
r e l a t i o n s h i p a mo n g t he p la i n tiff, th e fo ru m , a n d th e l i ti g a ti o n . Id . S e c o n d , it
c o n fu se s th e roles o f j u d g e a n d j u ry b yeq u a ti n g the j u ri sd i c ti o n a l i n q u i ry w i th t he unde r l yi ng m eri ts ; i n ot herw or ds , i ts hi ft s t he ana l ys i s f r om c o n tac tsto
c ul p a b i l ity . Id. at790– 91. Thi r d, di r ec t ed- a- t ortj ur i sd i ct i on s hi fts th e f ocu s f r om t he def end ant ’ s con t ac t s t o t he t ype of cl ai m as se rt ed by t he pl ai nt i f f ; f or exa m pl e, a def end antm i ght be su bj ec t t o j ur i sd i ct i on by di r ec t i ng a t ortatt he fo ru m butnotbes ubj ec tt o j ur i sd i ct i on f ora con t r ac tcl ai m ar i si ng f r om t he
s a m e fa c ts . Id. a t791. A n d f i n a l l y — a sweh a v e a l r e a d yn o t e d

— t h e s u p r e me c o u rto b s e rv e d t h a tc h a n g e sin t e c h n o lo g y h a v e m a d e r e lia n c e o n p h o n e c a lls
o b s o le t e a sp r o o fo fp u r p o s e f u l a v a ilm e n t (t h o u g h , a s w e h a v e a ls o n o t e d , itd id nothol d th a t p h o n e ca l l s ca n never b e p ro o f o f p u rp o s e fu l a v a i l m e n t). Id. U l t i m at el y, t he cou rtr ej ec t ed t he n o ti on t hat“ sp ec i f i c j ur i sd i ct i on t ur nson
whether

a def endant ’ s con tac ts were torti ousrath e r t h a n the co n tac ts t hem sel ves. ” Id. a t 7 9 2 . (em p h a s i sa d d e d ).17

I n t his cas e, w e have f ocused ou rj ur i sdi ct i onal anal ysi s on A ppel l ant s’
c o n t a c t s w it h T e x a s , n o t w h e t h e rt h o s e c o n t a c t sw e r e t o rt io u s . T h u s , w h ile A p p e l l a n ts ’ o b s e rv a t i o n th a t th e s u p re m e c o u rt h a srej e c te d d i re c te d -a -to rt j ur i sdi ct i on i s t r ue, i tdoes notunhi nge ou ranal ysi s. In s u m , w e c o n c l u d e th a t A p p e l l a n ts ’ p a rti c i p a ti o n i n th e te l e p h o n i c b o a rd
m e e ti n g s s a ti s fi e sth e th re e k e y a s p e c ts o f p u rp o s e fu l a v a i l m e n t. S ee IR A Res. , 2 2 1 S .W .3 d a t 5 9 6 ; Mi chi ana , 168 S. W . 3d at785. Appel l ant s’ pa rt i ci pat i on i n th e b o a rd m e e ti n g s w a s n o t th e u n i l a te ra l a c ti v i ty o f a n o th e r p a rtyo r a th i rd per so n; t he m ee t i ngsw er e p ur pos ef ul r at hert han r and o m , i so l at ed, or f ort ui t ous ; an d Appel l ant s so ughts om e b ene f i torad van t ageby ava i l i ng th e m s e l v e s o f T e x a s j u ri s d i c ti o n , n a m e l y , G e rn s b a c h e r’s a n d Z i n tg ra ff’s
s u b s c r ip t io n t o t h e N e w N o t e s . W e t h e r e f o r e h o ld t h a tt h e e v id e n c e isle g a lly
a nd f a c t ua l l y s uf f i c i e ntt o s up po rtt het r i a l c ou rt ’ sc on c l us i on t ha tApp e l l a n ts avai l ed t hem sel ves oft he pr i vi l ege ofdoi ng bu si ness i n T exas.

2. Subst ant i alConnec t i on B u tp u r p o s e f u l a v a ilm e n ta lo n e w ill n o ts u p p o rta n e x e r c is e o fs p e c if ic j u ri s d i c ti o n . Moki

Mac , 22 1 S . W . 3d at 57 9. Forspeci f i c-j ur i sdi ct i on pu r poses, p u rp o s e fu l a v a i l m e n t h a sn o j u ri s d i c ti o n a l re l e v a n c e u n l e s sth e d e fe n d a n t's l i a b i l i tya ri s e sfro m o r re l a t e sto th e fo ru m c o n ta c ts . Id. Ther e m ustbe a18

su bs t ant i alco nne ct i on be t w ee n t h e d e f end ant ’ s f or um co nt ac t s and t he
o p e ra ti v e fa c ts o f th e l i ti g a ti o n . Id. a t584. I n Moki Mac , t h e s u p r e m e c o u rtlo o k e d t o t h e f a c t u a l is s u e st h a tit ant i ci pat ed w oul d bet he pr i m ary f ocu s at tri a l to de t er m i ne w het hert he p l a i n ti ffs ’ m i s re p re s e n ta ti o n c l a i m sa ro s e fro m o r re l a te d to M o k iM a c ’s p u rp o s e fu l s o l i c i ta ti o n o f T e x a sc u s to m e rs . Id. The “ ope r at i ve f ac t s”oft he pl ai nt i f f ’ s su i ti n Moki Mac con ce r ned a t ourgui de’ s con du c t o n a hi ki ng e x p e d it io n in A r iz o n a a n d w h e t h e rt h e g u id e e x e r c is e d re a s o n a b le c a r e in
s u p e rv i s i n g th e p l a i n ti ff’s s o n , w h o d i e d d u ri n g th e h i k e . Id. a t585. T h e c o u rt
r ea so ned t hati tw as t he eve nt s on t he t r ai l an d t he gui de’ s su pervi si on oft he hi ket hatw oul d bet he f ocu s oft he t r i alan d w oul d se rve as t he ove r w hel m i ng
m aj or i t y oft he evi dence pr esent ed at t r i al , not t he r epr esent at i ons by M oki M ac i n i ts l i te ra tu re to th e p l a i n ti ffs . Id. O n l ya ft e rt h o r o u g h l yc o n s i d e r i n g t he
m ann eri n w hi ch t he hi ke w asco nduc t ed w oul d t he j ury t hen as se sst he p l a i n ti ff’s m i s re p re s e n ta ti o n c l a i m . Id. The cou rtconcl uded t hat“[ w ] hat ever c o n n e c ti o n the re m a yb e b e tw e e n M o k iM a c ’s p rom o ti o n a l m a teri a l s s e n t t o Texa s and t he ope r at i ve f ac t s t hatl ed t o [ t he so n’ s] dea t h, w e d o notbe l i eve i ti s suf f i ci ent l y di r ectt o m eetdue- pr ocess concer ns. ” Id. H er e, i n c ont r as tt o Moki Mac , A ppe l l ant s’ co nt ac t s w i t h Tex ast hats how pur pos ef ul av ai l m ent
— t h e te l eph oni c b oar d m ee t i ngs — ar e a l so t he ope r at i ve19

f act s oft he l i t i gat i on. The pri m ary f ocus att r i al w il l be on t he al l eged
m i sr epr es ent at i onsA ppe l l ant s m adedur i ng t he boa r d m ee ti n g s . Unl i ket he
m i sr epr es ent at i onsi n Moki Mac , w h i c h w e re ta n g e n ti a l to th e p l a i n ti ffs ’ c o re negl i gence cl ai m , A ppel l ant s’ m i sr epr esent at i ons in th i s case a ret he cor e o f A ppel l ees’ cl ai m s. A ppel l ant s’ l i abi l i t y, i f any, ar i ses di r ect l y f r om and r el at es t o t hei rcont act s w i t h T e x a s . W e t her ef or e hol d t hatt her e i s a s ubst ant i al
con nec t i on bet w ee n A ppe l l ant s’ f or um con t ac t s and t he ope r at i ve f ac t s oft he l i ti g a ti o n . See i

d. a t584. H avi ng c onc l ude d t hat A ppe l l ant s pur pos ef ul l y ava i l ed t hem se l vesoft he fo rum an d tha t t h e re i s a su b sta n ti a l co n n e c ti o n b e tw e e n the i r f o rum co n tac ts
a n d t h e o p e r a t iv e f a c t s o f t h e lit ig a t io n , w e h o ld t h a t t h e e v id e n c e w a sle g a lly
a n d fac tu a l l ysu ffi c i e n t t o su p p o rtthe tr i a l co u rt ’s co n c l u sion tha t A p p e l l a n ts h a v e m in im u m c o n t a c t sw it h T e x a s s u f f ic ie n t t o a llo w t h e e x e r c is e o fs p e c if ic j ur i sdi ct i on ov ert hem . C . Fai rPl ay and S ubst ant i alJust i ce W e now t ur n t o w het hert he exer ci s e o fper sonal j ur i sdi ct i on ov er A ppel l ant s com port s w i t h t r adi t i onal not i ons off ai rpl ay and subst ant i al j ust i ce. Se eGua rd

i a nRo ya l

E x ch . Ass ura n c e, L td. v. E ngl i shChi n aCl a ys, P. L . C. , 815 S. W . 2d 223, 226 ( Tex. 1991 ) . I n m ak i ng t hi s det er m i nat i on, w e c ons i dert he f ol l o w i n g fac t or s: ( 1) t he bur den on t he def end ant s; ( 2) t he i nt er es t s oft he20

f or um st at e i n adj udi ca t i ng t he di sp ut e; ( 3) t he pl ai nt i f f ’ s i nt er es ti n obt ai ni ng c o n v e n ie n ta n d e f f e c t iv e re lie f ; ( 4 ) t h e in t e r s t a t e ju d ic i a l s y s t e m ’s in t e r e s tin obtai n in g t he m ostef f i ci entr esol ut i on of contr over si es; and ( 5) t he shar ed i nt er estoft he sever al st at es i n f urt her i ng f und am ent al , subs ta n t i ve soci al p o l i c i e s . S e ei

d. a t 2 2 8 ; se e al

soA sahi

Metal I ndus . Co. v. Super

i or Courtof Ca. , 4 8 0 U .S . 1 0 2 , 1 1 3

– 1 6 , 1 0 7 S . C t. 1 0 2 6 , 1 0 3 3

– 3 4(1 9 8 7 ); Bur ger Ki ng , 471 U . S. at 477 , 105 S. C t . at 218 4. O nl y i n r ar e c as esw i l l t he exe r ci seof j ur i sd i ct i on no tco m portw i t h f ai rpl ay and s ubs t ant i alj us t i cew h e n t he
nonr es i d e n t def end antha s pur pos ef ul l y e st abl i sh ed m i ni m um co nt ac t s i n t he fo ru m s ta te . G uardi an Royal, 815 S. W . 2d a t 2 3 1 ; see al so Schl obohm , 784 S. W . 2d a t358. A ppe l l ant s con t end th a tt he bur den ofl i t i gat i ng i n Tex asi s “s i m pl y t oo gr eatt o j ust i f y j ur i sdi ct i on” because t he i ndi vi dual A ppel l ant s l i ve i n M i nnesota, I l l i noi s, or M i chi gan and bec aus e A ppe l l ant G l enc oe i s a D el aw ar e c or por at i on
w i t h i t s hea dqua rt er s i n I l l i noi s. D i st anc e f r om t he f or um i s gen er al l y not
s u fficie n t t o d e f e a t j u ri s d i c ti o n b e c a u s e th e a v a i l a b i l i tyo f “ m o d e rn t r a ns po rt a t i on a nd c om m un i c a t i on ha ve m a de i t l e s s bu r de ns om e f ora p a rt y s u e d to d e fe n d h i m s e l f i n a S ta te w h e re h e e n g a g e s i n e c o n o m i c a c ti v i ty .” McGee v. I

nt ’ l Li f e I ns . Co. , 3 5 5 U .S . 2 2 0 , 2 2 3 , 7 8 S . C t. 1 9 9 , 2 0 1 (1 9 5 7 ). Fur t h e r , T e x a s h a s a ma n i f e s t i n t e r e s t i n p r o v i d i n g i t s r e s i d e n t sw i t h a21

c o n v e n i e n t fo ru m fo r r e d r e s s i n g i n j u ri e si n fl i c te d b yo u t-o f-s ta te a c to rs . S ee Bur ger Ki ng , 4 7 1 U .S . a t 4 7 9

– 8 2 , 1 0 5 S . C t. a t 2 1 8 5

– 8 7 . M o re o v e r, A ppe l l ee s hav e c hos en t o f i l e s ui t i n Texa s, and G er ns bac heran d Zi nt gr af fha ve an i nt er esti n obtai ni ng con veni entand ef f ect i ve rel i efi n T exas, w her e t hey
r e s i d e a n d w h e r e t h e yo n c e o w n e d b u s i n e s s e st h a tw e r e a c q u i r e d b ySE SC. Fi nal l y, be ca us e A ppe l l ant s hai l f r om s eve r aldi f f er ents t at es , t her e w i l l bes om e deg r eeof i nco nve ni enc e on at l ea sts om e o ft hem r ega r dl es s ofw her e l i t i gat i on pr oceeds. U lt im a t e ly , A p p e lla n t sh a v e n o t id e n t if ie d a n yc o n s id e r a t io n st h a tw o u ld
r enderj ur i sdi ct i on i n T exas unr easonabl e ort hatpr ovi de t hem w i t h a vest ed ri g h t n o t to b e s u e d i n T e x a s . See Bur ger Ki ng , 4 7 1 U .S . a t 4 7 7 , 1 0 5 S . C t. at21 84 –8 5. W e t her ef or e hol d t ha t t he t r i al court ’ s exer ci se ofper sonal j ur i sd i ct i on ov erA ppe l l ant s w oul d not of f end t r adi t i ona l not i ons off ai rpl ay and subst ant i al j ust i ce. S ee Tempest Broad. Cor p. v. I m l ay , 150 S . W . 3d 861, 876 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [ 1 4 t h D i s t.] 2 0 0 4 , n o p e t.); Cartl i dge v. Her

nandez , 9 S .W .3 d 3 4 1 , 3 5 0 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 1 9 9 9 , n o p e t.); Rowl and & Rowl and , P. C. v. Tex. Empl

oyer s I ndem . Co. , 9 7 3 S . W . 2 d 4 3 2 , 4 3 6 ( Tex. A p p .— A u s ti n 1 9 9 8 , n o p e t.).22

I I I . C onc l us i on Beca us e Appel l ant s es t abl i sh ed m i ni m um co nt ac t s w i t h Tex ass uf f i ci ent t o s ubj ec tt hem t o s pec i f i c j ur i sd i ct i on i n a Te xasco urtan d be ca us e t he
exe r ci se of su ch j ur i sd i ct i on w oul d notof f end t r adi t i ona l not i onsoff ai rpl ay and
su bs t ant i al j u s ti c e , w e o ver r ul e t hei rs ec ond a nd t hi r d i ss uesan d, notha vi ng
r eached t hei r f i r st i ssue, w e af f i r m t he t r i al court ’ s deni al of th e ir s p eci al appear ances.

A N N E GA RD N ER J U S T I C E PA N EL: G A RD N ER, W A LKER, an d M C C O Y, JJ. DEL I VERE D: Oct ob e r9, 2008