Opinion ID: 6108933
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Calder Effects Test

Text: Old Republic urges us to adopt the effects test for determining specific jurisdiction, approved by the United States Supreme Court in Calder v. Jones . See 465 U.S. 783 , 789, 104 S.Ct. 1482 , 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984) (holding that California properly asserted jurisdiction over Florida-based defendants because the brunt of the harm ... was suffered in California). Calder involved a Florida-based, national newspaper that published an allegedly defamatory article about a California resident. Id. at 784-85 , 104 S.Ct. 1482 . The Supreme Court held that California properly exercised jurisdiction over the Florida defendants based on the 'effects' of their Florida conduct in California. Id. at 789 , 104 S.Ct. 1482 . Central to that decision was the Supreme Court's conclusion that California was the focal point both of the story and of the harm suffered. Id. at 789 , 104 S.Ct. 1482 . The Supreme Court later clarified, however, that the test laid out in Calder requires that the effects of the alleged tort must connect the defendant to the forum state itself, not just to a plaintiff who lives there. Walden , 571 U.S. at ----, 134 S.Ct. 1115 . Thus, our interpretation of Calder aligns with the Supreme Court's:  Mere knowledge that the 'brunt' of the alleged harm would be felt-or have effects-in the forum state is insufficient to confer specific jurisdiction. Searcy , 496 S.W.3d at 68-69 (citing Walden , 571 U.S. at ----, 134 S.Ct. 1115 ). Moreover, we have explicitly rejected an approach to specific jurisdiction that turns upon where a defendant directed a tort rather than on the defendant's contacts. See Michiana Easy Livin' Country, Inc. , 168 S.W.3d at 790-92 . Accordingly, the effects test is not an alternative to our traditional minimum contacts analysis, and it does not displace the factors we look to in determining whether a defendant purposefully availed itself of the state. 5 We have already concluded that Goldsmith's contacts fall short of purposeful availment. At most, her alleged contacts connect her to Bell, a Texas resident. Therefore, even if a tort was committed and even if Goldsmith knew her actions would cause an injury in Texas, her contacts do not rise to the level of purposeful availment simply because the alleged harm occurred in Texas.