Jurisdiction and Venue

Chimp Haven, Inc. v. Primarily Primates, Inc., 281 S.W.3d 629 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009, no pet.). (Receivership)
A court appointing receivership over several chimpanzees has exclusive jurisdiction over the chimpanzees until the court relinquishes its jurisdiction over the suit, or the receiver is discharged and the chimpanzees are restored to the persons who are entitled to them. Accordingly, any trial court order addressing the rightful ownership or placement of the chimpanzees is void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Farwah v. Prosperous Mar. Corp., 220 S.W.3d 585 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2007, no pet.). (Personal Jurisdiction)
Owners and managers of a vessel will not be subject to personal jurisdiction in the courts where the vessel port if they are not in significant control of the itinerary of the vessel. Additionally, purchases made while at port of necessary equipment and supplies unrelated to the cause of action will not sufficiently demonstrate minimum contacts because the purchases are coincidental.

Houston Helicopters, Inc. v. Can. Helicopters Ltd., 901 F. Supp. 1225 (S.D. Tex. 1995). (Personal Jurisdiction; Forum Non-Conveniens; Motion Deadlines)
Personal jurisdiction of a Canadian company is proper in a Texas court when the company seeks out a contractual relationship with the Texas company, sends a representative to visit the state for one month, and engages the Texas company to provide other services in the state. Forum non conveniens does not warrant dismissal when the goods at issue are in Texas, much of the evidence and many of the witnesses are scattered around the globe and therefore inconvenience will occur no matter the forum, and the key Canadian witnesses for the company are its employees and therefore under its direct control. A response to a partial summary judgment motion is timely filed when it is filed within the time allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but after the deadline established by court's docket control order.

J.M. Huber Corp. v. Pan Am. Express, Inc., 118 F. Supp. 2d 764 (S.D. Tex. 2000). (Personal Jurisdiction)
Specific personal jurisdiction does not apply to an out of state company merely because they knew their product would be traveling through the state, via an independent carrier, on its way to another state.

Ramirez v. Collier, Shannon, Scott, PLLC, 123 S.W.3d 43 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied). (Venue; Interlocutory Appeal; Intervention)
The original plaintiff in a case has no rights to appeal an order denying intervention or joinder of another party if the order does not affect the plaintiff’s rights. A party denied the right to intervene or join a cause of action due to improper venue may bring an interlocutory appeal for either determination by a trial court that the party failed to independently establish proper venue, or that the party failed to meet the criteria required in lieu of independently establishing proper venue. For the purpose of intervention and joinder, a plaintiff does not establish the essential need that his case be tried in the venue merely by presenting evidence of a need to try the case together with the original plaintiff. The desire to “pool resources” against a common plaintiff is insufficient.

Ross v. Linebarger, Goggan, Blair & Sampson, 333 S.W.3d 736 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist] 2010, pet. denied). (Governmental Immunity)
The act of collecting taxes is a governmental function even when it leads to foreclosure of property as a measure of collection. Accordingly, governmental immunity extends to bar claims of negligent misrepresentation, wrongful foreclosure, and violation of procedural due process against private law firms contracted to perform the actions involved in collection.

Said v. Maria Invs., Inc., No. 01-08-00962-CV,2010 WL 457463 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 11, 2010) (mem. op.). (Special Appearance; Affidavits)
When special appearance affidavits are submitted via facsimile, they must be submitted ten days prior to a hearing rather than seven days prior as applicable when hand delivered.

Williams v. Castro, 21 F. Supp. 2d 691 (S.D. Tex. 1998). (Personal Jurisdiction; “Fortuitous” Contacts)
When a Texas resident and his son initially contact an out of state employer while traveling in the employer’s state of residence, the employer’s three subsequent phone calls and money transfer in its efforts to hire them are considered “fortuitous” contacts. Therefore, they do not satisfy the “minimum contacts” requirement for specific personal jurisdiction.