Opinion ID: 895205
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: AG marketed its products exclusively through Limited, a Texas distributor.

Text: AG argues that its individual owners rather than AG itselfestablished Limited. Even if that were true, by marketing [its] product through a distributor who has agreed to serve as the sales agent in the forum state, AG has met Asahi 's additional conduct standard. Asahi, 480 U.S. at 112, 107 S.Ct. 1026. AG also contends that, because it receives none of Limited's profits and relinquishes title to the hoses before they reach Texas, AG does not benefit from Limited's Texas connections. But AG reaps substantial economic gain through its sales to Limited, its largest distributor by far, responsible for over one-third of AG's annual sales. See Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 578 (finding purposeful availment because of foreign corporation's additional conduct through which it aimed to get extensive business in or from this state). Indeed, specific jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers is often premised on sales by independent distributors. See, e.g., Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Still N The Water Publ'g, 327 F.3d 472, 483-84 (6th Cir.2003) (finding specific jurisdiction under additional conduct standard based in part on nationwide distribution agreement with independent distributor); Kuenzle v. HTM Sport-Und Freizeitgeräte AG, 102 F.3d 453, 458 (10th Cir.1996) (noting that [t]he actions of an independent distributor may not insulate a foreign company from specific jurisdiction); Tobin v. Astra Pharm. Prods., Inc., 993 F.2d 528, 533-34 (6th Cir.1993) (holding that foreign drug manufacturer who marketed its product in Kentucky through independent distributor was nonetheless subject to personal jurisdiction in forum under Asahi 's additional conduct standard); see also Pennzoil Prods. Co. v. Colelli & Assocs., 149 F.3d 197, 206-07 (3d Cir.1998) (applying additional conduct standard and finding specific jurisdiction in Pennsylvania over Ohio chemical producer who sold products to independent Ohio oil well producers that then sold oil to Pennsylvania refineries). Thus, it is not persuasive that title to the hoses passed in Europe, rather than in Texas. See Renner v. Lanard Toys Ltd., 33 F.3d 277, 282 (3d Cir.1994) (noting that a foreign manufacturer or seller [which] rids itself of title by a sale F.O.B. a foreign port [does not] insulate [itself] from jurisdiction if there is the other type of activity indicating purposeful availment); Gulf Consol. Servs., Inc. v. Corinth Pipeworks, S.A., 898 F.2d 1071, 1073 (5th Cir.1990) (observing that the simple fact that a sales transaction is consummated outside that jurisdiction does not prevent the sale from forming the basis of jurisdiction); Benitez-Allende v. Alcan Aluminio Do Brasil, S.A., 857 F.2d 26, 30 (1st Cir.1988) (holding that title passing in Brazil is beside the point in a specific jurisdiction analysis); Charles W. Rocky Rhodes, The Predictability Principle in Personal Jurisdiction Doctrine: A Case Study on the Effects of a Generally Too Broad, but Specifically Too Narrow Approach to Minimum Contacts, 57 BAYLOR L.REV. 135, 213 (2005).