minimum contacts analysis in Texas

2017Id. at 476-77 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 ; see also Schlobohm v. Schapiro, 784 S.W.2d 355, 357-58 (Tex. 1990) (observing that because the minimum-contacts analysis encompasses so many fairness considerations, it has become less likely that an exercise of jurisdiction will fail the fair-play analysis).

2016“The purpose of the minimum-contacts analysis is to protect the defendant from being haled into court when its relationship with Texas is too attenuated to support jurisdiction.” Schlobohm v. Shapiro, 784 S.W.2d 355, 357 (Tex. 1990).

2026The minimum contacts analysis requires “‘some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.’” Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777, 784 (Tex. 2005) (quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958)).

2025The minimum contacts analysis requires “‘some act by which the defendant purposely avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.’” Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777, 784 (Tex. 2005) (quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958)).

2026“When general jurisdiction is asserted, the minimum contacts analysis is more demanding and requires a showing of substantial activities in the forum state.” Guardian Royal, 815 S.W.2d at 228 .

2026“When general jurisdiction is asserted, the minimum contacts analysis is more demanding and requires a showing of substantial activities in the forum state.” Guardian Royal, 815 S.W.2d at 228 .

2026“Because of the unique and onerous burden placed on a party called upon to defend a suit in a foreign legal system, the minimum contacts analysis is particularly important when the defendant is from a different country.” Id.

2022See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 478 (1985) (“[A]n individual’s contract with an out-of-state party alone [cannot] automatically establish sufficient minimum contacts in the other party’s home forum[.]”); Jay Zabel & Assocs., Ltd. v. Compass Bank, 527 S.W.3d 545, 554 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.) (“It is well-established that merely contracting with a Texas resident does not satisfy the minimum contacts requirement.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2025Type Culture Collection v. Coleman, 83 S.W.3d 801, 806 (Tex. 2002) (“It is the quality and nature of the defendant’s contacts, rather than their number, that is important to the minimum-contacts analysis.”). 9 Relatedness “The ‘arise from or relate to’ requirement lies at the heart of specific jurisdiction by defining the required nexus between the nonresident defendant, the litigation, and the forum.” Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 579 . “[F]or a nonresident defendant’s forum contacts to support an exercise of specific jurisdiction, there must be a substantial connection between those contacts and t

2023“It is the quality and nature of the defendant’s contacts, rather than their number, that is important to the minimum-contacts analysis.” Id.

2014In contrast, when specific jurisdiction is alleged, we focus the minimum-contacts analysis on the “relationship among the defendant, –4– the forum [,] and the litigation.” Guardian Royal, 815 S.W.2d at 228 (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984)).

2012“The minimum contacts inquiry is broader and more demanding when general jurisdiction is alleged, requiring a showing of substantial activities in the forum state.” Id.

2016Because the minimum-contacts test is intended to ensure that the defendant could “reasonably anticipate” being sued in the forum’s courts, World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 297 , 100 S.Ct. 559 , “foreseeability is an important consideration” in the analysis, BMC Software, 83 S.W.3d at 795 .

2016Because the minimum-contacts test is intended to ensure that the defendant could “reasonably anticipate” being sued in the forum’s courts, World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 297 , 100 S.Ct. 559 , “foreseeability is an important consideration” in the analysis, BMC Software, 83 S.W.3d at 795 .

2025Id. (citing Michiana, 168 S.W.3d at 787 ); see also Blair Commc’ns, 80 S.W.3d at 729 (“Merely contracting with a Texas resident does not satisfy the minimum contacts requirement.”); Am.

2013“Although foreseeability is a factor to consider in a minimum contacts analysis, foreseeability alone will not support personal jurisdiction.” CSR, 925 S.W.2d at 595 .12 “The defendant must take an action ‘purposefully directed toward the forum state’ to be subject to the jurisdiction of its courts.” Id. (quoting Asahi Metal Indus.

2026The minimum contacts analysis requires “‘some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.’” Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777, 784 (Tex. 2005) (quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958)).

2025The minimum contacts analysis requires “‘some act by which the defendant purposely avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.’” Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777, 784 (Tex. 2005) (quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958)).

2025Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 575 ; see M & F Worldwide Corp. v. Pepsi-Cola 2 As resolution of this issue is dispositive of this appeal, we do not address the fiduciary shield doctrine issue and the “arise from or relate to” and “fair play and substantial justice” elements of the minimum contacts test. 6 Metro.

2025Id. at 339 (quoting Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 575 ); Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777, 785 (Tex. 2005). [¶ 31] The minimum-contacts analysis focuses on the “quality and nature of the defendant’s contacts,” not quantity.

2011Trigeant Holdings, Ltd. v. Jones, 183 S.W.3d 717, 725 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied).

2011Trigeant Holdings, Ltd. v. Jones , 183 S.W.3d 717, 725 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied).

2019Constitutional due process considerations are satisfied when the plaintiff shows (1) the defendant has “minimum contacts” with Texas and (2) a Texas court exercising personal jurisdiction over the defendant would not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” BMC Software, 83 S.W.3d at 795 (citing Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)). 8 “The minimum-contacts test focuses on the question of whether the defendant has purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state.” Lensing, 417 S.W.3d at 155 .

2016Federal due process is satisfied if (1) the nonresident defendant has “minimum contacts” with Texas and (2) the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” See BMC Software, 83 S.W.3d at 796 (citing International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 , 66 S.Ct. 164 , 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945)). .When, as here, a plaintiff asserts specific jurisdiction, the minimum contacts analysis focuses on the relationship between the defendant, the forum, and . the litigation.

2025Id. at 339 (quoting Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 575 ); Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777, 785 (Tex. 2005). [¶ 31] The minimum-contacts analysis focuses on the “quality and nature of the defendant’s contacts,” not quantity.

2025The minimum contacts analysis considers whether “(1) the defendant purposefully avails itself of conducting activities in the forum state, and (2) the cause of action arises from or is related to those contacts or activities.” Retamco, 278 S.W.3d at 338 .

2025Id. (citing Michiana, 168 S.W.3d at 787 ); see also Blair Commc’ns, 80 S.W.3d at 729 (“Merely contracting with a Texas resident does not satisfy the minimum contacts requirement.”); Am.

2024Servs., Inc., 80 S.W.3d 723, 729 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (“Merely contracting with a Texas resident does not satisfy the minimum contacts requirement[;] [n]or is jurisdiction justified by the single fact that a contract is payable in Texas.”) (internal citations omitted).

2025Ct., 592 U.S. 351 , 359 (2021); see also TV Azteca v. Ruiz, 490 S.W.3d 29, 37 (Tex. 2016) (“The minimum- contacts requirement protects due-process rights by permitting a state to exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only when the defendant ‘could reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.’”) (quoting Moncrief Oil, 414 S.W.3d at 152 ).

2025Ct., 592 U.S. 351 , 359 (2021); see also TV Azteca v. Ruiz, 490 S.W.3d 29, 37 (Tex. 2016) (“The minimum-contacts requirement protects due- process rights by permitting a state to exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only when the defendant ‘could reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.’”) (quoting Moncrief Oil, 414 S.W.3d at 152 ).

2016See Burger King, 471 U.S. at 478 , 105 S. Ct. at 2185 (stating that an individual’s contract with an out-of-state party cannot by itself establish sufficient minimum contacts in the other party’s home forum); TeleVentures, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 12 S.W.3d 900 , 908–09 (Tex. App.— Austin 2000, pet. denied) (stating that merely contracting with a Texas corporation does not satisfy the minimum-contacts requirement); Magnolia Gas Co. v. Knight Equip. & Mfg.

2004The court in Blair Communications further rejected a bright-line test that focuses solely on the initiation of contact between the parties: “While purposeful contact with the forum state is an important component of the minimum contacts analysis, equally important is the requirement that there be a substantial connection between the nonresident defendant and the forum state arising from such contact.” Id. (quoting Ring Power Sys. v. International de Comercio Y Consultoria, S.A., 39 S.W.3d 350, 354 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.)).

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.

2013See PHC-Minden, 235 S.W.3d at 171 (three contracts with Texas entities were not continuous and systematic general business contacts sufficient to support general jurisdiction); Asshauer, 319 S.W.3d at 16 (merely contracting with a Texas corporation does not satisfy the minimum contacts requirement).

2023However, we conclude that Greigo is distinguishable in at least one significant respect: there the supreme court concluded that “merely contracting with and accepting an account-initiation fee from a Texas resident for services performed in California are insufficient to satisfy the minimum contacts test.” Id. at 597 (emphasis added).

2023The minimum contacts analysis requires purposeful availment: “some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” Id. (citation omitted) (emphasis in original).

2025Ct., 592 U.S. 351 , 359 (2021); see also TV Azteca v. Ruiz, 490 S.W.3d 29, 37 (Tex. 2016) (“The minimum- contacts requirement protects due-process rights by permitting a state to exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only when the defendant ‘could reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.’”) (quoting Moncrief Oil, 414 S.W.3d at 152 ).

2025Ct., 592 U.S. 351 , 359 (2021); see also TV Azteca v. Ruiz, 490 S.W.3d 29, 37 (Tex. 2016) (“The minimum-contacts requirement protects due- process rights by permitting a state to exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only when the defendant ‘could reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.’”) (quoting Moncrief Oil, 414 S.W.3d at 152 ).

2021“The minimum- contacts requirement protects due-process rights by permitting a state to exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only when the defendant ‘could reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.’” Id. at 37 (quoting Moncrief Oil Int’l Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, 414 S.W.3d 142, 152 (Tex. 2013)).

2019Constitutional due process considerations are satisfied when the plaintiff shows (1) the defendant has “minimum contacts” with Texas and (2) a Texas court exercising personal jurisdiction over the defendant would not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” BMC Software, 83 S.W.3d at 795 (citing Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)). 8 “The minimum-contacts test focuses on the question of whether the defendant has purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state.” Lensing, 417 S.W.3d at 155 .

2016Corp., 994 S.W.2d 684 , 691–92 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.) (stating that neither contracting with a Texas corporation nor the partial performance of a contract in Texas is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction), disapproved of on other grounds by BMC Software, 83 S.W.3d at 794 & n.1.

2001See Magnolia, 994 S.W.2d at 691 (“[Mjerely contracting with a Texas corporation does not satisfy the minimum contacts requirement.”).

2025Ct., 592 U.S. 351 , 359 (2021); see also TV Azteca v. Ruiz, 490 S.W.3d 29, 37 (Tex. 2016) (“The minimum- contacts requirement protects due-process rights by permitting a state to exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only when the defendant ‘could reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.’”) (quoting Moncrief Oil, 414 S.W.3d at 152 ).

2025Ct., 592 U.S. 351 , 359 (2021); see also TV Azteca v. Ruiz, 490 S.W.3d 29, 37 (Tex. 2016) (“The minimum-contacts requirement protects due- process rights by permitting a state to exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only when the defendant ‘could reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.’”) (quoting Moncrief Oil, 414 S.W.3d at 152 ).

2025Federal due process jurisprudence divides the minimum contacts analysis into “two strains of personal jurisdiction: specific and general.” Searcy, 496 S.W.3d at 67 .

2024See Searcy, 496 S.W.3d at 74 (observing that electronic communication through calls and emails alone do not decide the case since the minimum contacts analysis focuses on the quality and nature of the defendant’s contacts, rather than their number); see also Old Republic Nat’l Title Ins.

1981Minimum Contacts Plaintiff also contends that as a matter of law defendant's contacts with Texas were sufficient to satisfy due process under the minimum contacts test established by O'Brien v. Lanpar Co., 399 S.W.2d 340 (Tex.1966), and U-Anchor Advertising, Inc. v. Burt, 553 S.W.2d 760, 762 (Tex.1977).

1981Minimum Contacts Plaintiff also contends that as a matter of law defendant’s contacts with Texas were sufficient to satisfy due process under the minimum contacts test established by O’Brien v. Lanpar Co., 399 S.W.2d 340 (Tex.1966), and U-Anchor Advertising, Inc. v. Burt, 553 S.W.2d 760, 762 (Tex.1977).

2004The court in Blair Communications further rejected a bright-line test that focuses solely on the initiation of contact between the parties: “While purposeful contact with the forum state is an important component of the minimum contacts analysis, equally important is the requirement that there be a substantial connection between the nonresident defendant and the forum state arising from such contact.” Id. (quoting Ring Power Sys. v. International de Comercio Y Consultoria, S.A., 39 S.W.3d 350, 354 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.)).

2004The court in Blair Communications further rejected a bright-line test that focuses solely on the initiation of contact between the parties: "While purposeful contact with the forum state is an important component of the minimum contacts analysis, equally important is the requirement that there be a substantial connection between the nonresident defendant and the forum state arising from such contact." Id. (quoting Ring Power Sys. v. International de Comercio Y Consultoria, S.A., 39 S.W.3d 350, 354 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.)).

1998"Because the minimum contacts analysis now encompasses so many considerations of fairness, it has become less likely that the exercise of jurisdiction will fail a fair play analysis." Schlobohm, 784 S.W.2d at 357-58 ; see also Nikolai, 922 S.W.2d at 239 .

1998“Because the minimum contacts analysis now encompasses so many considerations of fairness, it has become less likely that the exercise of jurisdiction will fail a fail* play analysis.” Schlobohm, 784 S.W.2d at 357-58 ; see also Nikolai, 922 S.W.2d at 239 .

2019See Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 , 291 134 S. Ct. 1115, 1126 (2014) (“The proper focus of the minimum contacts inquiry in intentional-tort cases is the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.”); see also Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475 , 105 S. Ct. at 2184 ; M&F Worldwide, 512 S.W.3d at 889. 18 The elements of a misappropriation of trade secrets claim are (1) the existence of a trade secret, (2) breach of a confidential relationship or improper discovery of a trade secret, (3) use of the trade secret, and (4) damages.

2019See Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 , 291 134 S. Ct. 1115, 1126 (2014) (“The proper focus of the minimum contacts inquiry in intentional-tort cases is the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.”); see also Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475 , 105 S. Ct. at 2184 ; M&F Worldwide, 512 S.W.3d at 889. 18 The elements of a misappropriation of trade secrets claim are (1) the existence of a trade secret, (2) breach of a confidential relationship or improper discovery of a trade secret, (3) use of the trade secret, and (4) damages.

2010And it is our focus here. *186 We, like the Dawson-Austin court, are also mindful that the Shaffer court instructed that “[t]he standard for determining whether an exercise of jurisdiction over the interests of persons is consistent with the Due Process Clause is the minimum-contacts standard elucidated in International Shoe.” See Shaffer, 433 U.S. at 207 , 97 S.Ct. at 2581 ; see also Dawson-Austin, 968 S.W.2d at 327 .

2010And it is our focus here. *186 We, like the Dawson-Austin court, are also mindful that the Shaffer court instructed that “[t]he standard for determining whether an exercise of jurisdiction over the interests of persons is consistent with the Due Process Clause is the minimum-contacts standard elucidated in International Shoe.” See Shaffer, 433 U.S. at 207 , 97 S.Ct. at 2581 ; see also Dawson-Austin, 968 S.W.2d at 327 .

2014Calder, 465 U.S. at 786 , 104 S.Ct. 1482 . .As previously explained, the Keeton Court recognized that the plaintiff’s residence may be relevant to a minimum contacts analysis because the relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff’s residence may "enhance” the defendant's contacts with the forum state, especially if the plaintiff's residence is the focus of the defendant’s activities related to the suit.

2014Calder, 465 U.S. at 786 , 104 S.Ct. 1482 . .As previously explained, the Keeton Court recognized that the plaintiff’s residence may be relevant to a minimum contacts analysis because the relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff’s residence may "enhance” the defendant's contacts with the forum state, especially if the plaintiff's residence is the focus of the defendant’s activities related to the suit.