Court Opinion

ID: 9639525
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 16:21:50.571551+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:19.536175
License: Public Domain

PAUL W. GREEN, Justice,
dissenting on motion for rehearing.
I dissent to the failure of the panel to grant rehearing to correct the panel’s erroneous holding that DT-Cayman is subject to the jurisdiction of the Texas courts. Although I previously joined in the panel decision, I am now persuaded I was in error to conclude that DT-Cayman conducted any activities amounting to purposeful contacts in Texas that would subject it to jurisdiction in this State.
DT-Cayman, a Caymanian company, was hired by InverWorld, also a Caymani-*276an company, to serve as its independent accounting and auditing firm. In carrying out that assignment, DT-Cayman was required to engage DT-Texas to do the audit field work in Texas because InverWorld’s principal office was located in San Antonio. That DT-Texas performed services for DT-Cayman in Texas is not sufficient to support Texas jurisdiction over DT-Cayman. See Magnolia Gas v. Knight Equip. & Mfg. Corp., 994 S.W.2d 684, 692 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, no pet.), overruled on other grounds by BMC Software Belgium N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex.2002). Moreover, the record supports the trial court’s implied finding that DT-Cayman’s contacts with Texas were insufficient to establish the necessary minimum contacts to attach jurisdiction. I would affirm the trial court’s order.