Opinion ID: 35275
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Danieli Corp.

Text: Delta contends that Danieli Corp. has minimum contacts with Texas based on Danieli Corp.’s breach of Delta’s confidentiality agreement, its fraudulent misrepresentations to Delta, and its conspiracy with Danieli & C to acquire Delta’s confidential information. We agree with the district court, however, that Delta has not presented a prima facie case of specific personal jurisdiction related to any of these claims. In its appellate brief, Delta argues that specific personal jurisdiction is proper based on the confidentiality agreement, because, by entering into the agreement, Danieli Corp. “created continuing obligations between it and [Delta], a Texas resident[,] and has availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in Texas.” Delta’s argument is unpersuasive. As Delta 12 admitted in its Second Amended Complaint, “Danieli [Corp.] and Danieli & C are separate and distinct legal entities.” The uncontradicted evidence shows that Danieli Corp. never agreed to be bound by the confidentiality agreement between Delta and Danieli & C. Notwithstanding that Danieli & C promised on behalf of itself and “any other party affiliated with it [to] maintain . . . the strict confidentiality of [Delta’s] Confidential Information,” only Danieli & C signed the agreement. Danieli Corp. did not know about the confidentiality agreement,5 let alone agree to be bound by it. It is far-fetched indeed to assert that Danieli Corp. should have anticipated being haled into Texas court in connection with a contract it did not know about, that was executed in Italy by its affiliate, and that was allegedly breached by its affiliate in Italy. Consequently, we hold that Delta has failed to establish a prima facie case of specific personal jurisdiction related to its contract claim against Danieli Corp. Delta also contends that specific personal jurisdiction exists based on Danieli Corp’s fraudulent misrepresentations. In its brief on appeal, Delta argues that Danieli Corp., like SSAB, made misrepresentations to Delta that it knew or should have known would cause harm to Delta in Texas. Delta, however, never 5 According to an affidavit submitted by Danieli Corp. and uncontradicted by Delta, Danieli Corp. was unaware of the confidentiality agreement until it received Delta’s original complaint in this case. 13 alleged in its Second Amended Complaint that Danieli Corp. actually misrepresented any material facts. Delta merely alleged that misrepresentations were made, but the complaint is ambiguous about who allegedly made them: Danieli & C, Danieli Corp., or both.6 Since Danieli Corp. and Danieli & C are different corporations, only misrepresentations made by Danieli Corp. itself can be used to measure Danieli Corp.’s contacts with Texas; Danieli & C’s contacts cannot be imputed to Danieli Corp. See Alpine View Co., 205 F.3d at 219. Furthermore, even if we interpreted Delta’s complaint as alleging that Danieli Corp. made material representations to Delta and that it was foreseeable to Danieli Corp. that the effects of the misrepresentations would felt by Delta in Texas, we would still find that Delta has not established a prima facie case of jurisdiction over Danieli Corp. As with SSAB, Delta has failed to show that Danieli Corp.’s misrepresentations had any connection to Texas, other than that the effects of the misrepresentations would be felt by Delta there. Critically, Delta has not shown that Danieli Corp. purposefully directed its actions at Texas. See Panda Brandywine Corp., 253 F.3d at 869-70 (holding that the foreseeability of causing injury in Texas is 6 Delta’s complaint alleges that, “The unlawful means employed [by Danieli & C and Danieli Corp. to gain access to Delta’s confidential information] was the misrepresentation to [Delta] with respect to Danieli & C’s intent to utilize [Delta] as a subcontractor.” Thus, it is unclear who actually made the misrepresentations. 14 insufficient for specific personal jurisdiction, and that the plaintiff must also show that the defendant purposefully directed its efforts towards the forum state). Delta has not, for example, alleged that Danieli Corp.’s misrepresentations arose out of contacts initiated by Danieli Corp., rather than contacts initiated by Delta.7 Nor has Delta alleged that Danieli Corp.’s misrepresentations occurred in telephone calls, emails, or faxes, to Delta in Texas. Cf. Wien Air Alaska, Inc., 195 F.3d at 212. Because there has been no showing that Danieli Corp. purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business within Texas, we find that Delta’s allegations do not support a prima facie case of specific personal jurisdiction over Danieli Corp. Finally, Delta argues that it properly established a prima facie case of specific personal jurisdiction based on Danieli Corp.’s alleged participation in a conspiracy with Danieli & C. In its Second Amended Complaint, Delta alleges that Danieli Corp. conspired with Danieli & C to misappropriate Delta’s confidential information and that the “means employed [to accomplish this goal] was the misrepresentation to [Delta] with respect to Danieli & C’s intent to utilize [Delta] as a subcontractor [and] the breach of the Confidentiality Agreement.” According to 7 We note that, after losing the SSAB contract to Danieli & C, Delta initiated contact with Danieli Corp. to inquire about subcontracting. But, of course, contacts initiated by Delta do not show that Danieli Corp. purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business within Texas. Hanson, 357 U.S. at 253. 15 Delta, its allegations of conspiracy were sufficient, under Mandelkorn v. Patrick, 359 F. Supp. 692 (D.D.C. 1973), to establish a prima facie case because Danieli Corp. never denied that it participated in a conspiracy with SSAB and Danieli & C. We note, first, that Mendelkorn, a district court case from the District of Columbia, is not binding authority. Even if we agreed with the analysis contained in Mandelkorn, however, Delta’s argument fails because, in his affidavit, Mark Brandon, the President of Danieli Corp., explicitly “denie[d] that [Danieli Corp.] conspired in any way with SSAB . . . and/or Danieli & C to acquire any information from Delta.” In any event, as explained above, Delta has failed to show how the alleged conspiracy between the defendants had any connection to the state of Texas. Because Delta has not established a prima facie case of specific personal jurisdiction over Danieli Corp., the district court correctly dismissed Delta’s claims against Danieli Corp. for lack of personal jurisdiction.