Opinion ID: 2831311
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Tortious Interference Claims

Text: Moncrief also brought claims against the Gazprom Defendants for tortiously interfering with existing and prospective business relationships. Moncrief contends the Gazprom Defendants’ appropriation of the alleged trade secrets in Texas and use of the information to form a competing enterprise destroyed Moncrief’s existing and prospective relationships with Occidental. The Gazprom Defendants respond, and the court of appeals held, that the tortious interference claims do not arise from the Texas meetings or their receipt of the information from Moncrief. We agree. Specific jurisdiction exists only if the alleged liability arises out of or is related to the defendant’s activity within the forum. Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 573. In considering competing interpretations of the phrase, we ultimately determined “for a nonresident defendant’s forum contacts to support an exercise of specific jurisdiction, there must be a substantial connection between those contacts and the operative facts of the litigation.” Id. at 585. In Moki Mac, a Texas teenager fell to 15 The Gazprom Defendants also contend the information they received from Moncrief did not constitute trade secrets. Although they may well ultimately prevail on this theory, it is a merits issue that is inappropriate at the jurisdiction stage. Michiana, 168 S.W.3d at 790–91. 17 his death in Arizona while on a hike supervised by a Utah-based company. Id. at 573. His parents filed suit against the company in Texas for wrongful death, maintaining the claim arose from misrepresentations in documents the company mailed to them in Texas as well as the company’s other Texas contacts. Id. at 573, 576. We disagreed, holding “the operative facts of the [plaintiffs’] suit concern principally the guides’ conduct of the hiking expedition and whether they exercised reasonable care in supervising” the teenager. Id. at 585. We further observed the “events on the trail and the guides’ supervision of the hike will be the focus of the trial, will consume most if not all of the litigation’s attention, and the overwhelming majority of the evidence will be directed to that question.” Id. Here, Moncrief alleges the Gazprom Defendants tortiously interfered with its agreement and relationship with Occidental, causing Occidental to breach its agreement and cease its relationship with Moncrief. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Sturges, 52 S.W.3d 711, 721–22, 727 (Tex. 2001) (discussing tortious interference with contract and tortious interference with prospective contractual or business relations claims). Under the framework we established in Moki Mac, Moncrief’s tortious inference claims principally concern two activities: (1) discussions between Gazprom and Occidental in California where Gazprom allegedly attempted to convince Occidental to proceed with a joint venture that did not include Moncrief, and (2) the Gazprom Defendants’ establishment of a competing enterprise in Texas, thereby diminishing the value of a joint venture between Occidental and Moncrief to accomplish the same purpose. See Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 585. Moncrief also argues its tortious interference claims arise from a third set of contacts: the Gazprom Defendants’ purported misappropriation of Moncrief’s alleged trade secrets in Texas. We 18 disagree. Much like the accident in Moki Mac would not have occurred but for executing contract materials in Texas, the establishment of a competing enterprise arguably would not be possible without the Gazprom Defendants’ purported acquisition of the alleged trade secrets. See id. at 585. However, but-for causation alone is insufficient. Id. Just as the wrongful death claim in Moki Mac was principally concerned with alleged negligence in Arizona, the tortious interference claim here is principally concerned with the California meeting and the competing Texas enterprise—not the purported misappropriation of alleged trade secrets. See id. Neither the California meeting nor the competing enterprise in Texas can form the basis for specific jurisdiction over the Gazprom Defendants in Texas. As we held in Michiana, a nonresident directing a tort at Texas from afar is insufficient to confer specific jurisdiction. 168 S.W.3d at 790–92. The focus is properly on the extent of the defendant’s activities in the forum, not the residence of the plaintiff. Id. at 789. Thus, the Gazprom Defendants’ alleged tortious conduct in California against a Texas resident is insufficient to confer specific jurisdiction over the Gazprom Defendants as to Moncrief’s tortious interference claims. See id. at 789–92. Moreover, Moncrief’s allegation that the Gazprom Defendants established a competing enterprise in Texas cannot support specific jurisdiction. Moncrief alleges Gazprom Marketing & Trading, Ltd., a Gazprom subsidiary, formed GMT USA as a competing enterprise in Texas. But the court of appeals rejected Moncrief’s theory that GMT USA is the alter ego of Gazprom Marketing & Trading, Ltd. 332 S.W.3d at 20–22; see PHC-Minden, L.P. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 235 S.W.3d 163, 175 (Tex. 2007) (imputing jurisdictional contacts to another entity requires assessing “the amount of the subsidiary’s stock owned by the parent corporation, the existence of 19 separate headquarters, the observance of corporate formalities, and the degree of the parent’s control over the general policy and administration of the subsidiary”). Moncrief does not challenge that ruling here. Additionally, Moncrief does not allege the Gazprom Defendants provided the trade secrets to GMT USA in Texas. Therefore, we cannot impute the Texas contacts regarding the competing enterprise to the Gazprom Defendants. In sum, we conclude neither the California contacts nor the establishment of a competing enterprise supports an exercise of jurisdiction over the Gazprom Defendants as to the tortious interference claims.