Court Opinion

ID: 9678935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:36:43.887394+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:33:42.124982
License: Public Domain

CHARLES KREGER, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
Because I would find no specific jurisdiction, I respectfully dissent in part and concur in part to the majority’s opinion. For a Texas court to exercise specific jurisdiction, (1) the nonresident defendant must have made minimum contacts with Texas by purposefully availing himself of the privilege of conducting business here, and (2) the nonresident defendant’s liability must have arisen from or be related to those contacts. Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569, 576 (Tex.2007). In Mold Mac, the Texas Supreme Court addressed the extent to which a claim must “arise from or relate to” the nonresident’s forum contacts to confer specific jurisdiction. The Court concluded that “for a nonresident defendant’s forum contacts to support an exercise of specific jurisdiction, there must be a substantial connection between those contacts and the operative facts of the litigation.” Id. at 585. This analysis focuses on the relationship among the nonresident, the forum, and the litigation. Pelican State Physical Therapy, L.P. v. Bratton, No. 01-06-*47200199-CV, 2007 WL 2833303, at *6 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 27, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Counter Intelligence, Inc. v. Calypso Waterjet Sys., Inc., 216 S.W.3d 512, 517 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, pet. denied)). Specifically, the allegedly wrongful conduct must have been purposefully directed at or have occurred in the forum and must have “a ‘substantial connection,’ resulting in the alleged injuries,” to the operative facts of the litigation. Id. (citing Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 584). Several Texas cases have found the “arises from or is related to” prong of the specific jurisdiction analysis unsatisfied when the nonresident defendant’s conduct that allegedly resulted in liability did not relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum state. See Gonzalez v. AAG Las Vegas, L.L.C., No. 01-08-0037-CV, 2009 WL 1562934, at *5 (TexApp.-Houston [1st Dist.] June 4, 2009, no pet. h.) (reversing trial court’s order denying special appearance where, given the pleadings, the operative facts regarding appellee’s alleged breach of loyalty and usurpation claims concern defendant’s acts while working in Las Vegas, Nevada, not Texas); Pelican, 2007 WL 2833303, at *8 (noting that the trial court properly concluded it could not exercise personal jurisdiction where the operative facts related to acts that occurred outside the forum state); Counter Intelligence, Inc., 216 S.W.3d at 520 (noting the trial court erred in concluding that Texas could exercise specific jurisdiction over defendant where the alleged breach of contract arose out of Counter Intelligence’s conduct in Pennsylvania and Maryland, not Texas); Gustafson v. Provider HealthNet Servs., Inc., 118 S.W.3d 479, 484 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.) (noting that none of the contacts relied upon to establish specific jurisdiction were related to defendant’s execution of the confidentiality agreement or his dissemination of confidential information, both of which occurred in Michigan, not Texas); Lang v. Capital Res. Invs., I & II, LLC, 102 S.W.3d 861, 866 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.) (holding no specific jurisdiction where alleged tortious conduct was not related to defendant’s contacts with Texas).
Likewise, here Murray’s contacts are insufficient to confer specific jurisdiction because the acts alleged to create liability do not arise out of and are not related to Murray’s contacts with Texas. The facts alleged in support of Epic’s claims for breach of contract, trade secrets misappropriation, breach of fiduciary duty, and tor-tious interference with existing contracts all relate to conduct that allegedly took place in Colorado.
In its petition, Epic alleges that Murray breached his employment agreement by violating the non-disclosure and non-competition provisions. Specifically, Epic alleges that Murray testified at his deposition that he was working as a consultant for EnCana Oil and Gas and thus, breached his employment agreement with Epic by disclosing confidential information obtained by Murray while working at Epic. Epic further alleges that Murray misappropriated trade secrets by using and disclosing confidential, proprietary, and trade-secret information to EnCana. Murray averred that he was working in EnCa-na’s Denver, Colorado offices. Epic does not allege that any of the confidential, proprietary or trade-secret information was either obtained by Murray in Texas or disclosed by Murray in Texas.
Epic further alleges that Murray breached his fiduciary duties to Epic by engaging in self dealing; failing to treat employees equally; usurping corporate opportunities; and failing to act with integrity, good faith, loyalty, and honesty during his employment with Epic. None of the facts alleged in support of these allegations arise out of or are related to Murray’s *473alleged contacts with Texas. Rather, the allegations made in support of these claims relate to actions by Murray while working in Colorado. Epic further alleges that Murray tortiously interfered with Epic’s existing and prospective contracts with EnCana. Murray, however, was employed by EnCana in its Colorado office.
The United States Supreme Court’s holding in Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985), is distinguishable from the present case. In Burger King, the franchise agreement required partial performance in the forum state; specifically, the franchisee’s payments under the contract were required to be made at Burger King’s place of business in Florida. Id. at 466, 468, 105 S.Ct. 2174. Failure to make the required payments formed a part of the basis of Burger King’s suit against the franchisee. Id. at 468, 105 S.Ct. 2174. Therefore, the alleged breach of the agreement occurred, at least in part, in Florida. As noted by the Pelican court, the nonresident defendant in Burger King was sued for some of the same contractual obligations that constituted, or were closely related, to his asserted contacts with Florida. Pelican, 2007 WL 2883303, at *9. Here, in contrast, the specific contractual obligations that Epic argues constitute Murray’s contacts with Texas were not those that Murray was alleged to have breached and the tortious acts that Epic alleges Murray committed were alleged to have been committed in Colorado.
“When an employee lives and works outside of Texas, employment ‘by a company with its principal place of business in Texas is not sufficient to establish the requisite minimum contacts with Texas.’ ” Rushmore Inv. Advisors, Inc. v. Frey, 231 S.W.3d 524, 530 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, no pet.) (quoting Gustafson, 118 S.W.3d at 483). After reviewing Murray’s contacts as a whole in light of the claims alleged, I would conclude Murray’s contacts with Texas are not sufficient to establish specific jurisdiction. See generally Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 585, 588; Gonzalez, 2009 WL 1562934, at **5-6; Pelican, 2007 WL 2833303, at **8-9; Gustafson, 118 S.W.3d at 483-84. None of the contacts relied upon by Epic to establish jurisdiction are connected to Murray’s alleged breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, or interference with existing or prospective contracts, all of which occurred if at all, in Colorado.
Instead, the contacts Epic relies on “relate only superficially to [Murray’s] general employment relationship” with Epic. See Gustafson, 118 S.W.3d at 484.
I disagree with the majority’s opinion that a choice of forum in an arbitration provision in a contract indicates that the contract is performable in part in the state of the selected forum and should be considered a factor when determining jurisdiction. The very purpose of an arbitration provision is to prevent subjecting the parties to litigation in the event of a dispute. See Cayan v. Cayan, 38 S.W.3d 161, 166 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (“[T]he purpose of alternative dispute measure is to keep parties out of the courtroom.”); see also Werline v. E. Tex. Salt Water Disposal Co., 209 S.W.3d 888, 896 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2006, pet. granted) (“The purpose of arbitration is to avoid the formalities, delay, and expense of ordinary litigation.”).
I would conclude the trial court did not have specific jurisdiction over Murray and should have granted his special appearance. I would vacate the trial court’s order granting the temporary injunction for lack of jurisdiction and dissolve the trial court’s order abating the arbitration for that reason. However, I agree with the majority’s holding that the evidence ad*474duced at the temporary injunction hearing does not support the trial court’s conclusion that Epic would be harmed if the issue raised by Murray in the arbitration proceeding was determined before the litigation concluded and concur in that part of the majority’s opinion that dissolves the temporary injunction.