Court Opinion

ID: 9676604
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:28:31.591776+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:49.759535
License: Public Domain

J. BONNER DORSEY, Justice,
concurring on motion for rehearing en banc.
I concur in this Court’s denial of appellant’s motion for rehearing en banc, but write separately to address two matters. First, the status of the plaintiff in the underlying litigation does not bear on the issue of whether the State of Texas can exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Also, that the defendant maintains a bank account in Texas, is not in itself sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction.
I agree that the actions of El Puerto’s subsidiaries in the State of Texas subjects El Puerto, the parent corporation, to general in personam jurisdiction. El Puerto de Liverpool, S.A. de C.V. v. Servi Mundi Llanter S.A. de CV, 82 S.W.3d 622, 637 - 38 (Corpus Christi 2002, no pet. h.); see Daimler-Benz Aktiengesellschaft v. Olson, 21 S.W.3d 707, 720 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000, pet. dism’d w.o.j.), writ denied, Daimler-Chrysler Aktiengesllschaft, — U.S.-, 122 S.Ct. 1960, 152 L.Ed.2d 1021 (2002). The subsidiaries conduct substantial business in Texas which is integral to the overall operations of the Mexican parent corporation. That kind of systematic and continuous conduct in the state of Texas satisfies the minimum contacts analysis. Texas may properly assert in personam jurisdiction over El Puerto on that basis.