Opinion ID: 35275
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: ssab

Text: SSAB is organized under the laws of Sweden. SSAB’s principal place of business is Borlänge, Sweden; it has no subsidiaries or branch offices in the United States. SSAB does not have employees, servants, or agents in Texas, nor does it own or lease any property in Texas. Nonetheless, Delta contends that SSAB’s contacts with Texas are sufficient to support general personal jurisdiction because (1) SSAB Swedish Steel (“Swedish Steel”), which is wholly owned by SSAB’s parent corporation, SSAB Svenskt Stal AB, maintains a Pittsburgh office and sells products in Texas; (2) one of Swedish Steel’s employees resides in Texas; (3) 0.04% of SSAB’s steel products were shipped by third parties into Texas; and (4) SSAB’s representatives visited Delta’s Texas facility on one occasion. We agree with the district court that these contacts are insufficient to give rise to general personal jurisdiction over SSAB. As noted by the district court, Swedish Steel’s contacts with Texas may not be imputed to SSAB because the evidence demonstrates that SSAB and Swedish Steel, though owned by the same parent corporation, are separate and distinct entities. See Alpine View Co., 205 F.3d at 218-19; Bearry v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 818 F.2d 370, 372-73 (5th Cir. 1987). Furthermore, that a small portion of SSAB’s products were shipped by third parties into Texas does not establish that SSAB availed itself of the 8 benefits and protections of Texas law. See Bearry, 818 F.2d at 373, 375-76 (holding that “[t]he laws of Texas neither protected nor benefitted” the defendant even though nearly $250 million of the defendant’s manufactured products flowed to independent dealers in Texas over a five-year period). Finally, SSAB’s lone trip to Texas for the purpose of visiting Delta’s headquarters is not a substantial contact and certainly does not constitute “continuous and systematic” contacts with Texas. In sum, the flow of SSAB’s goods into Texas through third parties, combined with one visit by SSAB to Delta’s Texas facility, are insufficient contacts with Texas to give rise to general personal jurisdiction. Delta also contends, however, that SSAB has contacts with Texas that support specific personal jurisdiction because (1) SSAB made misrepresentations to Delta, some of these misrepresentations were made in Texas, and it was foreseeable that the effects of SSAB’s misrepresentations would be felt by Delta in Texas and (2) SSAB was part of a conspiracy to acquire and to misappropriate Delta’s confidential information. Delta correctly notes that this court has held that tortious actions performed outside of Texas may be sufficient, for purposes of minimum-contacts analysis, if the actions “had foreseeable effects in the forum and were directed at the forum.” Wien Air Alaska, Inc. v. Brandt, 195 F.3d 208, 212 (5th Cir. 9 1999). But Delta has not shown that SSAB directed its actions at Texas. Rather, the evidence shows that Delta sought out SSAB’s business, first by telephoning SSAB in Sweden, and then by traveling to Sweden to meet with SSAB representatives. In fact, SSAB ultimately declined to create an ongoing business relationship with Delta, opting instead to do business with Danieli & C, an Italian Corporation. Contact initiated by Delta is insufficient to show that SSAB purposefully directed its actions at Texas. Hanson, 357 U.S. at 253 (“The unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State.”). Furthermore, Delta has not alleged that SSAB made misrepresentations to Delta while SSAB was in Texas; nor has Delta alleged that SSAB made misrepresentations in telephone calls, faxes, or emails to Delta personnel in Texas.4 Cf. Wien Air Alaska, Inc., 195 F.3d at 212 (holding that the defendants had purposefully directed their actions at Texas by making fraudulent misrepresentations to the plaintiff in telephone calls 4 SSAB did allegedly comment, during a phone call with a Delta employee in Texas, that “the rotary shear and temper mill in [Delta’s] material were very novel and interesting,” but, presumably, Delta does not consider this to be a false statement. In any case, this statement cannot form the basis for a fraudulent-misrepresentation claim, because, under Texas law, statements of opinion or judgment do not ordinarily support claims of fraud. Fina Supply, Inc. v. Abilene Nat’l Bank, 726 S.W.2d 537, 540 (Tex. 1987); Ryan v. Collins, 496 S.W.2d 205, 210 (Tex. Civ. App.--Tyler 1973, writ ref’d n.r.e.). 10 to the plaintiff in Texas and in letters and faxes sent to the plaintiff in Texas). Thus, Delta has not shown that SSAB purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business within Texas or invoked the benefits and protections of Texas’s laws. Consequently, we conclude that Delta has failed to establish a prima facie case of specific personal jurisdiction based on SSAB’s alleged misrepresentations. See Panda Brandywine Corp. v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 253 F.3d 865, 869 (5th Cir. 2001). Delta also contends that specific personal jurisdiction can be based on SSAB’s alleged participation in a conspiracy to obtain Delta’s confidential information. To establish its prima facie case of specific personal jurisdiction, Delta was required to demonstrate that SSAB individually, and not as part of the conspiracy, had minimum contacts with Texas. Guidry v. United States Tobacco Co., 188 F.3d 619, 625 (5th Cir. 1999). Thus, Delta was required to show that either the alleged conspiracy or SSAB’s alleged misrepresentations were related to or arose out of SSAB’s contacts with Texas. Delta’s First Amended Complaint states that “Defendants SSAB and Danieli have conspired together . . . to acquire and misappropriate [Delta]’s confidential and proprietary information” by making material misrepresentations to Delta. In this section of its complaint, however, Delta makes no reference to the state of Texas. Delta has provided no other evidence that 11 the conspiracy was related to SSAB’s contacts with Texas. Furthermore, as explained above, there is no evidence that SSAB’s alleged misrepresentations were directed at Texas. Therefore, Delta has not established a prima facie case of specific personal jurisdiction over SSAB based on its alleged participation in a conspiracy against Delta. As Delta has presented neither a prima facie case of general personal jurisdiction nor a prima facie case of specific personal jurisdiction, the district court correctly dismissed Delta’s suit against SSAB.