Roberts Markel Weinberg Butler Hailey PC Logo
Home > About > Reported Cases > Jurisdiction and Venue

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.

Fin. Strategy Grp., PLC v. Lowry, No. 01-14-00273-CV, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 692, at *1 (App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015) (Special Appearance; Jurisdiction)
The firm had insufficient contacts with Texas to confer jurisdiction because it did not develop financial strategies allegedly injuring plaintiffs investors, any knowledge that Texas residents would use tax returns it prepared for a nonresident client showed no purposeful availment, the client's move to Texas did not create the firm's minimum contacts, and employing an accountant licensed in Texas was too attenuated to create jurisdiction, as was mailing tax documents to the investors in Texas.

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.

Jones v. Markel, No. 14-14-00216-CV, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 6273, at *1 (App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015) (Vexatious Litigant)
The court did not abuse its discretion in declaring appellant a vexatious litigant because the record revealed some evidence to support constructive notice of the vexatious-litigant hearing to appellant, and both requirements of Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 11.054 were satisfied.

Layegh v. Stonebridge Ranch Cmty. Ass'n, Inc., No. 05-15-00494-CV, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 8350, at *1 (App.—Dallas 2015) (Foreclosure; Civil Procedure)
Rule 736.8(c) provides that an order granting an application for an expedited order allowing foreclosure is not subject to appeal and that any challenge to a Rule 736 order must be made in a suit filed in a separate, original proceeding.

Paulsen v. Yarrell, 455 S.W.3d 192, 193 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014) (TCPA; Anti-SLAPP)
Because Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(12) permits an appeal only from an order that denies a motion to dismiss filed under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 27.003, the professor's interlocutory appeal from the denial of attorney fees was not authorized by statute.

Prochaska v. Barnes, No. 01-15-01044-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 8100, at *1 (App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016) (Special Appearance; Jurisdiction)
Evidence that partnerships managed by nonresidents had leases to drill on oil and gas properties located in Texas was insufficient to establish specific personal jurisdiction over the nonresident managers because the leases were the property of the partnerships and not of the individual partners under Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code Ann. §§ 152.101, 152.102(a); A choice-of-law provision in some of the partnership agreements that specified Texas law did not confer personal jurisdiction by consent because it addressed the law to be applied and not the forum for disputes; Marketing investments in the partnerships nationwide and sending funds to a small number of Texas investors did not give rise to general jurisdiction.

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.