Opinion ID: 152954
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: McNamee's Business Contacts with Texas Satisfy the Minimum Contacts Test

Text: Unlike the cases upon which the majority opinion relies, McNamee had repeated business contacts with Clemens in Texas. As the majority opinion acknowledges, McNamee visited Texas approximately thirty-five times over the course of his paid, professional relationship with Clemens, each time to train Clemens and other professional athletes. The fact that these training sessions occurred in Texas is not fortuitous: McNamee traveled to Texas because that is where Clemens continuously resided during the off-season and because, for at least part of his career, Clemens played professional baseball in Texas. [3] Thus, McNamee purposely availed himself of the privileges of conducting business in Texas. See Nuovo Pignone, SpA v. STORMAN ASIA M/V, 310 F.3d 374, 380 (5th Cir.2002) (holding that minimum contacts exist where the defendant purposely has availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in that state); Stroman Realty, Inc. v. Antt, 528 F.3d 382, 386 (5th Cir.2008) (Purposeful availment of the privileges of conducting business in a forum is indicative that a defendant has contacts with a state.). Further, McNamee's business trips to Texas form a part of and relate to the training relationship from which the alleged steroid regimen either arose (McNamee's version) or did not arise (Clemens's version). See Trinity Indus., Inc. v. Myers & Assocs., Ltd., 41 F.3d 229, 231 (5th Cir.1995). In Trinity Industries, two lawyers allegedly counseled a Texas client's competitor to bring adverse litigation in Pennsylvania. The Texas client brought suit in Texas court, claiming breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, and negligence. We rejected the defendants' contention that personal jurisdiction was lacking because the tortious conduct occurred in Illinoiswhere the defendants' law firm was locatedand in Pennsylvaniawhere the tortious advice was given. Concluding that the lawsuit related to the defendants' contacts with Texas, we observed: The essence of Trinity's complaint is that its own lawyers counseled its competitor in bringing adverse litigation. There would be no injury or basis for a claim but for the fact that [the defendants] represented Trinity in Texas before and during their engagement by [the competitor]. Id. at 231-32. Similarly, the litigation in question here clearly relates to McNamee's business trips to Texas because the allegedly defamatory statements relate to McNamee's training relationship with Clemens. See Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 & n. 8, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984) (When a controversy is related to or `arises out of' a defendant's contacts with the forum, the Court has said that a `relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation' is the essential foundation of in personam jurisdiction.) (quoting Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977)). As discussed above, McNamee's background as Clemens's trainer, in both Texas and New York, is what put McNamee in a position toin his wordsgive Clemens steroids and, further, made him a credible person of interest to the various investigatory bodies and a news organization such as SI.com. See Trinity Indus., 41 F.3d at 231-32. Accordingly, McNamee should reasonably anticipate being haled into a Texas court for matters relating to his services as Clemens's personal trainer, including his statements that Clemens used steroids as part of his training regimen. The fact that McNamee's training relationship with Clemens extended beyond Texas's borders does not deprive the district court of specific jurisdiction. Neither the Supreme Court nor this court has ever required the tortious conduct to occur exclusively in or be exclusively related to the forum state. See Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 780, 104 S.Ct. 1473, 79 L.Ed.2d 790 (1984) ([R]espondent is carrying on a `part of its general business' in New Hampshire, and that is sufficient to support jurisdiction when the cause of action arises out of the very activity being conducted, in part, in New Hampshire.) (emphasis added); Walk Haydel & Assocs., Inc. v. Coastal Power Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 235, 244 (5th Cir.2008) (rejecting defendant's argument that personal jurisdiction was improper because most of the relevant contacts occurred outside the forum state); Streber v. Hunter, 221 F.3d 701, 718 (5th Cir.2000) (holding that specific jurisdiction was proper where at least some of the allegations forming the basis of this lawsuit arise out of [the defendant's] contacts with Texas). Accordingly, I conclude that the first prong of the specific jurisdiction inquiry is satisfied because McNamee's business contacts with Texas relate to this litigation and were more than minimum.