Opinion ID: 6108933
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Numerous Phone Calls

Text: Old Republic asserts that Goldsmith participated in hundreds of phone calls with a Texas resident during which Bell was worried about the federal government collecting on the Federal Lien. When communications between a nonresident and a resident are alleged as the basis for jurisdiction, we look to the quality and nature of the communications to establish purposeful availment. See id. at 74. On their own, numerous telephone communications with people in Texas do not establish minimum contacts, and we have noted that changes in technology may render reliance on phone calls obsolete as proof of purposeful availment. Michiana Easy Livin' Country, Inc. , 168 S.W.3d at 791 (reasoning that a caller ID number no longer necessarily indicates anything about the caller's location and questioning: If jurisdiction can be based on phone conversations 'directed at' a forum, how does a defendant avail itself of any jurisdiction when it can never know where the other party has forwarded calls or traveled with a mobile phone?); see also Alenia Spazio, S.p.A. v. Reid , 130 S.W.3d 201 , 204 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied) (holding that numerous telephone and facsimile communications with people in Texas relating to an alleged contract do not establish minimum contacts). Additionally, to support an exercise of specific jurisdiction, there must be a substantial connection between those contacts and the operative facts of the litigation. Moki Mac River Expeditions , 221 S.W.3d at 585 ; see also Michiana Easy Livin' Country, Inc. , 168 S.W.3d at 795 (holding that to establish specific jurisdiction, the cause of action must arise from the defendant's contacts with Texas). Old Republic asserts that the phone calls relate to or form the basis of their claim because Bell  and Goldsmith talked about planning how to deal with the situation caused by [Bell's] husband's criminal conviction. Goldsmith testified that she and Bell had known each other since the 1970s, are very close friends, and are pretty much like family. Thus, it is hardly out of the ordinary that they spoke frequently on the phone. Moreover, given the circumstances and the nature of their friendship, it is to be expected that they would have discussed Bell's situation. The connection between the phone calls and the allegedly fraudulent money transfers seems to hinge on a but-for analysis (but for Goldsmith loaning money to Bell, Bell never would have sent the proceeds of the house's sale to Goldsmith), which we have rejected in the jurisdictional inquiry. See Moki Mac River Expeditions , 221 S.W.3d at 581 . We held that the but-for approach was too broad and judicially unmoored to satisfy due-process concerns. Id. (agreeing with courts that have criticized the but-for approach for its seemingly unlimited jurisdictional reach that literally embraces every event that hindsight can logically identify in the causative chain). We do not doubt that Bell and Goldsmith discussed the details of Bell's situation after her ex-husband was convicted of a federal offense, including the financial ramifications. However, Goldsmith's statements that they were thinking ahead, trying to plan, and brainstorming are a far cry from Old Republic's allegations that they were conspiring to fraudulently transfer Texas-based assets out of Texas to shield them from Bell's creditors. Thus, the argument that the calls are substantially connected to Old Republic's fraudulent-transfer claim is, at best, a stretch. Even assuming that the phone calls were sufficiently connected to the claim, a proper minimum-contacts analysis looks to the defendant's contacts with the forum state itself, not the defendant's contacts with persons who reside there. Walden v. Fiore , 571 U.S. 277 , ----, 134 S.Ct. 1115 , 188 L.Ed.2d 12 (2014). The record contains no evidence-and in fact, Old Republic did not plead or attempt to prove-that Goldsmith initiated the calls with Bell. We could just as easily infer that Goldsmith merely accepted Bell's calls. However, our analysis of purposeful availment requires that a defendant seek some benefit, advantage or profit by availing itself of the jurisdiction. Moncrief Oil Int'l Inc. , 414 S.W.3d at 151 ; Retamco Operating, Inc. , 278 S.W.3d at 339 . We reject the notion that phone calls with a friend who happens to live in Texas are sufficient contacts with the forum state itself to confer jurisdiction, and under these facts, we see no evidence that Goldsmith ever sought a benefit, advantage, or profit from these calls.