Source: http://www.houston-opinions.com/files/14thCoA-2009-Information-Services-Group-Inc-v-Rawlinson-by-Brown-special-appearance-appeal-minimum-contacts-analysis.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:00:07+00:00

Document:
of specific jurisdiction, we affirm.
in the U.K. exclusively. Eurosourcing is a branch or subsidiary of Technology Partners International, Inc.
to Texas twice at Eurosourcing’s direction for annual conferences.
Services included choice-of-law provisions specifying that either New York or Delaware law applied.
business of providing various consulting services to companies throughout the United States and Europe.
violation of his confidentiality agreements.
alleged that Rawlinson breached three non-disclosure, non-solicitation, and non-competition agreements.
on February 24, 2009, granting Rawlinson’s special appearance and dismissing him from the case.
Whether a trial court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant is a question of law we review de novo.
Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569, 574 (Tex. 2007); BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v.
defendant who “does business” in the state. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 17.042 (Vernon 2008).
comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S.
activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Int’l Shoe, 326 U.S.
important when the defendant is from a different country. Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.
S. 102, 114 (1987); BMC Software, 83 S.W.3d at 795.
contacts analysis on the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation. Moki Mac, 221 S.
litigation, we select those facts that would be the focus of the trial. See id.; Pulmosan Safety Equip. Corp.
assumption of jurisdiction would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
guarantees. See Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 575.
CV, 2009 WL 3490989, *4–5 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] October 29, 2009, no pet. h.); Rushmore Inv.
HealthNet Servs., Inc., 118 S.W.3d 479, 483 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.).
Technology Partners] registered in England and Wales” and reflected Eurosourcing’s and Rawlinson’s U.
law, and neither of these agreements contemplated performance in Texas.
the minimum-contacts analysis for specific jurisdiction. See Yfantis v. Balloun, 115 S.W.3d 175, 183 (Tex.
App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.); Shell Compania Argentina de Petroleo, S.A., 84 S.W.3d at 838–39.
Pelican State Physical Therapy, L.P. v. Bratton, No. 01-06-00199-CV, 2007 WL 2833303, at *9 (Tex. App.
the claims asserted are insufficient to establish specific jurisdiction. See Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 588.
basis for jurisdiction specifically arises out of the conduct of which American complains.” Id. at 850.
employment took place in the U.K., and the appellants do not challenge this testimony.
and a case from this court, Lathrop v. Personalysis Corp., No. 14-06-00074-CV, 2006 WL 3072072 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 31, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.). Both cases are distinguishable.
presumptively reasonable for Rudzewicz to be called to account there for such injuries.” Id.
Washington corporation with its principal place of business in Washington. 2006 WL 3072072, at *1.
the test in direct violation of the license agreement and began selling it as his own product. Id. at *2.
that reported to Burger King in Florida. Id. at 6–8.
Texas through a continuing relationship with Technology Partners in Texas.
no evidence to suggest that he would have done so anywhere but in the U.K.
substantial connection to the operative facts of the litigation. See Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 585–88.
Las Vegas for the job. While there, he traveled to Houston to attend a general manager’s meeting. Id.
support the assertion of specific jurisdiction in Texas. Id. at *8.
had extensive communications with the employer’s personnel in Texas. See 2007 WL 2833303, at *4–6.
In that case, Bratton managed a physical-therapy clinic in Louisiana for his Texas employer, Pelican State.
facts. See id. at *8–9.
located in Texas administered Gustafson’s dental and life insurance. Id. at 483.
in the forum state and the agreement expressly provided that it was governed by the forum state’s law. Id.
state is insufficient to establish minimum contacts.” Id.
Francke v. Fisher, 237 S.W.3d 789, 792 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.).
Dowdy v. Miller, 122 S.W.3d 816, 822 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, no pet.) (quoting Burger King, 471 U.S.
personal jurisdiction over him comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
 MCP-TPI is not a party to the lawsuit below.
 Here, the trial court held a hearing on Rawlinson’s special appearance, but we have no reporter’s record of the hearing.
Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777, 784 (Tex. 2005).
he did not know the location of Technology Partners’s servers.

References: v. 
 v.

 § 17
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.