Opinion ID: 52436
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant Simtob

Text: While we do not find sufficient contacts for the other individuals, General Retail has submitted sufficient evidence to justify the assertion of personal jurisdiction over Simtob. In contrast to the other individuals, the uncontroverted allegations in the First Amended Complaint allege specific contacts between Simtob and Texas. For example, Simtob allegedly sent the marketing materials and Offering Circular that contained the alleged misrepresentations to General Retail in Texas. The evidence introduced by the plaintiffs in the 12(b)(2) Response corroborated the allegations, and established additional contacts with Texas. Simtob drafted the portion of the Offering Circular that made representations concerning the Wireless Toyz model store’s profitability; he presented General Retail with the Franchise Agreement in Texas; and he accepted the executed Franchise Agreement and franchise fee in Texas. Thus, General Retail established that Simtob purposefully directed his activities to Texas because he created and intentionally sent the Offering Circular to Texas. Because General Retail’s alleged injuries arise from those contacts, namely, the Offering Circular, Simtob has sufficient minimum contacts with Texas. See Lewis, 252 F.3d at 359. We also find that the fiduciary-shield doctrine–which prohibits the attribution of corporate acts to corporate officers–does not bar the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Simtob. See Siskind v. Villa Foundation for Educ., Inc. 642 S.W.2d 434, 437-38 (Tex. 1982). This argument was accepted by the 31 No. 06-20395 district court, which cited to Donovan v. Grim Hotel Co., 747 F.2d 966, 973 (5th Cir. 1984), in support of its decision.13 Rather than supporting jurisdiction, however, Donovan, demonstrates why the fiduciary-shield doctrine does not protect Simtob. In Donovan, the individual defendant, founder and president of the five corporate defendants, argued that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over him because his only contacts with Texas were in a corporate capacity. The court rejected this argument because he was being sued under a fair wage law in his personal capacity. Id. at 973. The court explained that neither Texas or federal law allowed the defendant to hide behind his corporate status. Texas’ fiduciary-shield doctrine did not bar jurisdiction because he was being sued for specific acts, which had reasonably foreseeable consequences within Texas. Id. at 973 n.11 (citing Siskind, 642 S.W.2d at 437-38). So while the fiduciary-shield doctrine could prohibit this court from ascribing acts of the Wireless Toyz to Simtob, it does not prohibit Simtob from being held personally liable for his own tortious conduct simply because he is an officer of a corporation. Finally, jurisdiction is proper because Simtob has not established that the exercise of jurisdiction over him would violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. See Wein Air Alaska, Inc., 195 F.3d at 215. Only one factor, the burden on Simtob, weighs in his favor. But General Retail’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief in Texas is just as great. Since Texas has an interest in protecting its franchisees and judicial economy is served by maintaining the action in one single forum, it is fair to make Simtob adjudicate his claim in Texas.