purposeful availment analysis in Texas

2026“The purposeful availment test must focus on the defendant’s efforts to avail itself of the forum and not the form of action chosen by the plaintiff.” Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 576 (internal quotations omitted); see Michiana, 168 S.W.3d at 789-90 (for determining personal jurisdiction, “it is ʻthe defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum’ that are critical.”).

2025C.R. at 206–207. 29 The Texas Supreme Court has explained a “single contract may meet the purposeful-availment standard” if it involves more than a “single contact taking place outside the forum state.” Michiana, 168 S.W.3d at 787 ; see also Micromedia v. Automated Broadcast Controls, 799 F.2d 230, 234 (5th Cir. 1986) (“Even a single purposeful contact may be sufficient to meet the requirements of minimum contacts when the cause of action arises from the contact.”) (citing McGee v. International Life Ins.

2026“The purposeful availment test must focus on the defendant’s efforts to avail itself of the forum and not the form of action chosen by the plaintiff.” Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 576 (internal quotations omitted); see Michiana, 168 S.W.3d at 789-90 (for determining personal jurisdiction, “it is ʻthe defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum’ that are critical.”).

2025Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaf, 669 S.W.3d at 412 (citing Ford Motor Co., 592 U.S. at 352 ; Luciano, 625 S.W.3d at 8-9; see also Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569, 576, 579 (Tex. 2007) (specific-jurisdiction analysis involves two co- equal components: purposeful availment and relatedness)). 12 Purposeful Availment “At its core, the purposeful availment analysis seeks to determine whether a nonresident’s conduct and connection to a forum are such that it could reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” Moncrief Oil, 414 S.W.3d at 152 .

2023“Where the defendant has ‘deliberately’ engaged in significant activities within a state, he ‘manifestly has availed himself of the privilege of conducting business there.’” Luciano, 625 S.W.3d at 9 (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475-76 (1985)). 28 With these considerations in mind, we find the following jurisdictional allegations in Ryan’s First Amended Petition satisfy the purposeful availment requirement: e) Gannett authorized SALT to seek [] tax savings from the State of Texas by executing forms to submit to the State of Texas Workforce Commission which specifically

2022“The purposeful availment test should focus on ‘the defendant’s efforts to avail itself of the forum’ and not ‘the form of action chosen by the plaintiff.’” Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 576 ; see Michiana, 168 S.W.3d at 789–90 (for determining personal jurisdiction, “it is ‘the defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum’ that are critical”) (quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 474 ).

2020The State also argues that, even if it has not met the purposeful-availment test, jurisdiction is proper here because “a state’s regulatory interest may establish the reasonableness of jurisdiction upon a lesser showing of minimum contacts than would otherwise be required.” See Guardian Royal, 815 S.W.2d at 229 ; Nicastro, 564 U.S. at 877–78 (noting possible exceptions to purposeful availment, including “intent to obstruct its laws”).

2020The State also argues that, even if it has not met the purposeful-availment test, jurisdiction is proper here because “a state’s regulatory interest may establish the reasonableness of jurisdiction upon a lesser showing of minimum contacts than would otherwise be required.” Guardian Royal, 815 S.W.2d at 229 ; see Nicastro, 564 U.S. at 877–78 (noting possible exceptions to purposeful availment, including “intent to obstruct its laws”).

2025At “its core, the purposeful availment analysis seeks to determine whether a nonresident’s conduct and connection to a forum are such that it could reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” Moncrief Oil Int’l Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, 414 S.W.3d 142, 152 (Tex. 2013).

2025The purposeful availment analysis asks whether “‘a nonresident’s conduct and connection to a forum are such that it could reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.’” See Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, 669 S.W.3d at 413 (quoting Moncrief Oil Int’l, Inc., 414 S.W.3d at 152 ).

2019The purposeful availment requirement encompasses three considerations: (1) “only the defendant’s contacts with the forum are relevant, not the unilateral activity of another party or a third person”; (2) “the contacts relied upon must be purposeful rather than random, fortuitous, or attenuated”; and (3) “the defendant must seek some benefit, advantage 3 or profit by availing itself of the jurisdiction.” Id. (quoting Moncrief Oil Int’l Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, 414 S.W.3d 142, 151 (Tex. 2013)).

2018The purposeful availment inquiry focuses only on the nonresident defendant’s contacts with Texas, “not the unilateral activity of another party.” Retamco, 278 S.W.3d at 339 ; Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 575 .

2025Conceptually, “it is difficult to see how a failure to act could meet the purposeful availment requirement needed to establish personal jurisdiction.” Brocail v. Anderson, 132 S.W.3d 552, 564 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. denied) (quoting Anderson v. Bechtle, No. 01-00-00593-CV, 2001 WL 930205 , at * 2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 16, 2001, no pet.) (not designated for publication)). 16 “By its very nature, failure to disclose [or to act] demonstrates that a party did not have contacts with the forum state.” Id.

2014For similar reasons, the court of appeals in Brocail reiterated its holding that “it is difficult to see how a failure to act could meet the purposeful availment requirement needed to establish personal jurisdiction. 132 S.W.3d at 564 (citing Anderson v. Bechtle, No. 01-00- 00593-CV, 2001 WL 930205 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 16, 2001, no pet.) (not designated for publication)).

2025Co. v. Bell, 549 S.W.3d 550, 562 (Tex. 2018). 3 Appellants’ brief states that they “will not argue that the court has general jurisdiction over Mr. Zimmerman, because it has specific jurisdiction.” -4- 04-24-00073-CV Thus, the purposeful-availment inquiry cannot be satisfied merely by alleging that the defendant directed a tort from outside the forum against a resident.

2022See Bell, 549 S.W.3d at 562 (“We recognize that a state has a special interest in exercising jurisdiction over those who commit torts within its territory . . . [h]owever, that interest cannot and must not displace the purposeful-availment inquiry, the mere allegation that a nonresident directed a tort from outside the forum against a resident is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.”).

2017See Bryan v. Gordon, 384 S.W.3d 908, 917 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.) (“[W]e believe the purposeful-availment analysis should not turn on the fortuity of where the Texas resident was physically located when the defendant e-mailed the contract or when the defendants made allegedly actionable misrepresentations by e-mail.”); Riverside Exports, Inc. v. B.R.

2014See Bryan, 384 S.W.3d at 917 (“[W]e believe the purposeful-availment analysis should not turn on the fortuity of where the Texas resident was physically located when the defendant e-mailed the contract or when the defendants made allegedly actionable misrepresentations by e-mail.”); Riverside Exports, Inc. v. B.R.

2003See Guardian Royal, 815 S.W.2d at 227 ; AmQuip Corp. v. Cloud, 73 S.W.3d 380, 385 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.).

2003See Guardian Royal, 815 S.W.2d at 227 ; AmQuip Corp. v. Cloud, 73 S.W.3d 380, 385 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.).

2012Id. at 482 (“such a provision alone would be insufficient to confer jurisdiction” but taken with other factors might “reinforce[] his deliberate affiliation with the forum State and the reasonable foreseeability of possible litigation there”); 15 Michiana, 168 S.W.3d at 792 (noting that choice-of-law and forum-selection provisions are relevant to purposeful-availment inquiry); see also Preussag Aktiengesellschaft v. Coleman, 16 S.W.3d 110, 125 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. dism’d w.o.j.) (choice-of-law provision standing alone does not “indicate a voluntary submission to the person

2012Id . at 482 ("such a provision alone would be insufficient to confer jurisdiction" but taken with other factors might "reinforce[] his deliberate affiliation with the forum State and the reasonable foreseeability of possible litigation there"); Michiana , 168 S.W.3d at 792 (noting that choice-of-law and forum-selection provisions are relevant to purposeful-availment inquiry); see also Preussag Aktiengesellschaft v. Coleman , 16 S.W.3d 110, 125 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. dism'd w.o.j.) (choice-of-law provision standing alone does not "indicate a voluntary submission to the perso

2026See PHC–Minden, 235 S.W.3d at 165 (“Minimum-contacts analysis is easily muddled . . . as courts frequently import contacts relevant to one type of jurisdiction when deciding the other.”). 3 The purposeful-availment inquiry involves three features: (1) the relevant contacts must be those of the defendant, and the unilateral activity of another person or a third party is not pertinent; (2) the contacts must be purposeful rather than random, fortuitous, isolated, or attenuated; and (3) the defendant must seek some benefit, advantage, or profit by “availing” itself of the jurisdiction.

2010See PHC-Minden , 235 S.W.3d at 168 .

2023See Volkswagen, 669 S.W.3d at 413 (stating defendant’s contacts with forum are only relevant contacts with respect to purposeful availment); see generally Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 285 (2014) (stating minimum contacts “looks to the defendant’s 25 contacts with the forum State itself, not the defendant’s contacts with persons who reside there”).

2021Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 575 ; accord Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 , 284–86 (2014); Burger King, 471 U.S. at 474–75. [b] Alleged Liability Arises From or Relates to Contacts Specific jurisdiction is established when the nonresident defendant’s alleged liability arises from or is related to activity conducted within the forum.

2017Crane & Equip., LLC, 362 S.W.3d 649, 655 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, pet. denied) (“Like telephone calls, e-mails do not necessarily indicate anything to the recipient about the sender’s location.

2014Crane & Equip., LLC, 362 S.W.3d 649, 655 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, pet. denied) (“Like telephone calls, emails do not necessarily indicate anything to the recipient about the sender’s location.

2009Dowdy v. Miller , 122 S.W.3d 816, 822 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, no pet.) (quoting Burger King , 471 U.S. at 478 )) (emphasis added); see also Brocail , 132 S.W.3d at 564 (“‘[I]t is difficult to see how a failure to act could meet the purposeful availment requirement needed to establish personal jurisdiction.’”) (citing Anderson v. Bechtle , No. 01-00593-CV, 2001 WL 930205 , at *2 ((Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 16, 2001, no pet.) (not designated for publication)).

2009Dowdy v. Miller, 122 S.W.3d 816, 822 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2003, no pet.) (quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 478 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 )) (emphasis added); see also Brocail, 132 S.W.3d at 564 (“ ‘[I]t is difficult to see how a failure to act could meet the purposeful availment requirement needed to establish personal jurisdiction.’ ”) (citing Anderson v. Bechtle, No. 01-00593-CV, 2001 WL 930205 , at *2 ((Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 16, 2001, no pet.) (not designated for publication)).

2026Searcy, 496 S.W.3d at 67 .

2022The crux of the purposeful availment analysis is “whether a nonresident defendant’s conduct in and connection with Texas are such that it could reasonably anticipate being haled into court here.” Searcy, 496 S.W.3d at 67 .

2019“Three principles govern the purposeful-availment analysis: (1) only the defendant’s contacts with the forum are relevant, not the unilateral activity of another party or third person; (2) the defendant’s acts must be purposeful and not random, isolated, or fortuitous; and (3) the defendant must seek some benefit, advantage, or profit by availing itself of the jurisdiction such that it impliedly consents to suit there.” M & F Worldwide Corp., 512 S.W.3d at 886 (internal quotation marks omitted).

2018“Three principles govern the purposeful-availment analysis: (1) ‘only the defendant’s contacts with the forum’ are relevant, not the unilateral activity of another party or third person; (2) the defendant’s acts must be ‘purposeful’ and not ‘random, isolated or fortuitous’; and (3) the defendant ‘must seek some benefit, advantage, or profit by “availing” itself of the jurisdiction’ such that it impliedly consents to suit there.” M&F –7– Worldwide, 512 S.W.3d at 886 (quoting Michiana, 168 S.W.3d at 785 ).

2021And to meet the standard of purposefulness, the defendant must act deliberately, i.e., it has “‘deliberately’ engaged in significant activities within a state”; it “manifestly has availed [itself] of the privilege of conducting business there.” Id. (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 , 475–76, 105 S. Ct. 2174, 2184 (1985)). 12 Contacts that are fortuitous and attenuated do not satisfy the purposeful- availment standard.

2012See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474-75 , 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2183 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) (explaining that the purposeful-availment requirement ensures that a nonresident will not be haled into a foreign jurisdiction based on “ ‘[t]he unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship’ ” with the defendant or as the result of “‘random,’ ‘fortuitous,’ or ‘attenuated’ contacts.” (quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 , 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1239-40 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958))).

2020The State also argues that, even if it has not met the purposeful-availment test, jurisdiction is proper here because “a state’s regulatory interest may establish the reasonableness of jurisdiction upon a lesser showing of minimum contacts than would otherwise be required.” See Guardian Royal, 815 S.W.2d at 229 ; Nicastro, 564 U.S. at 877–78 (noting possible exceptions to purposeful availment, including “intent to obstruct its laws”).

2020The State also argues that, even if it has not met the purposeful-availment test, jurisdiction is proper here because “a state’s regulatory interest may establish the reasonableness of jurisdiction upon a lesser showing of minimum contacts than would otherwise be required.” Guardian Royal, 815 S.W.2d at 229 ; see Nicastro, 564 U.S. at 877–78 (noting possible exceptions to purposeful availment, including “intent to obstruct its laws”).

2025Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaf, 669 S.W.3d at 412 (citing Ford Motor Co., 592 U.S. at 352 ; Luciano, 625 S.W.3d at 8-9; see also Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569, 576, 579 (Tex. 2007) (specific-jurisdiction analysis involves two co- equal components: purposeful availment and relatedness)). 12 Purposeful Availment “At its core, the purposeful availment analysis seeks to determine whether a nonresident’s conduct and connection to a forum are such that it could reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” Moncrief Oil, 414 S.W.3d at 152 .

2021Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017, 1028 (2021) (recognizing that Ford’s activities in “work[ing] hard to foster ongoing connections to its cars’ owners” and in distributing “replacement parts both to its own dealers and to independent auto shops in the [forum] states” was relevant to the purposeful availment analysis because “[t]hose activities, too, make Ford money.”).

2018MoneyGram states that this Court has recognized that “a single contract may meet the purposeful availment standard where the agreement involves many contacts between the defendant and the forum over a period of time.” Tabacinic v. Frazier, 372 S.W.3d 658, 666 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no pet.).

2018But Tabacinic is distinguishable: we concluded that a “contract for the purchase or assignment of Texas real property is such” a “single contract [that] may meet the purposeful availment standard[.]” Id. at 666–67. 9 MoneyGram refers to Theofanopoulos “planning his fraudulent scheme in Texas.” As the record indicates, however, Theofanopoulos was not and has never been “in Texas.” –15– In addition, MoneyGram argues that Texas courts have found purposeful availment “where nonresident defendants established an ongoing relationship with and obligations to Texas residents in order to profit from a

2015Michiana, 168 S.W.3d at 785, 789-90 (discussing cases finding specific jurisdiction when the contacts were “aimed at getting extensive business in or from the forum state”); see also Zac Smith & Co., Inc. v. Otis Elevator Co., 734 S.W.2d 662, 664-66 (Tex. 1987) (finding that the defendant “purposefully availed” itself of the benefits and protections of the laws of Texas when the contract was formed “for the sole purpose of building a hotel in Texas”). 7 In fact, Collins testified that he initiated the contact at Franklin’s request, CR346 (¶ 6), but even if Collins initiated the contact on his

2015The purposeful-availment requirement 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985); Zac Smith & Co., ensures that a nonresident defendant will not be haled into 734 S.W.2d at 663 ).

2015“It is beyond dispute that [a forum] has a significant interest in redressing injuries that actually occur within the State.” Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 776 , 104 S. Ct. 1473, 1479 (1984).

2015“It is beyond dispute that [a forum] has a significant interest in redressing injuries that actually occur within the State.” Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 776 , 104 S. Ct. 1473, 1479 (1984).

2025Corp., 529 S.W.3d 145, 153 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. denied).