consent to jurisdiction clause in Texas

2024Rudnicki also relies on RSR Corp. v. Siegmund, in which this Court noted that the phrase “any action or proceeding arising out of or relating to this Agreement” (in a consent to jurisdiction clause) was “broad and encompass[ed] all claims that have some possible relationship with the agreement, including those claims that may only ‘relate to’ the agreement.” 309 S.W.3d 686, 701 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.) (emphasis added).

2022Servs., Inc. v. Dresser-Rand Co., 514 S.W.3d 828, 833 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.); see also RSR Corp., 309 S.W.3d at 704 (application of long-arm statute and analysis of contacts with Texas unnecessary when agreement contained a consent-to-jurisdiction clause).

2023Burger King, 471 U.S. at 472 n.14; Abacan Tech.

2017See id. (citing Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 589 , 111 S. Ct. 1522 , 113 L.Ed.2d 622 (1991); Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 , 472 n.14, 105 S. Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985); Baker Hughes Inc. v. Brooks, 405 S.W.3d 246, 249 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. denied); RSR Corp. v. Siegmund, 309 S.W.3d 686, 704 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.).

2022Servs., Inc. v. Dresser-Rand Co., 514 S.W.3d 828, 833 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.); see also RSR Corp., 309 S.W.3d at 704 (application of long-arm statute and analysis of contacts with Texas unnecessary when agreement contained a consent-to-jurisdiction clause).

2019Id. at *7 (noting party seeking to bind nonsignatory to forum-selection clause “bore the burden to identify and prove a theory under which the nonsignatories could be bound”); see also Vinmar Overseas Singapore PTE Ltd. v. PTT Int’l Trading PTE Ltd., 538 S.W.3d 126 , 138 n.6 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. denied) (questioning direct-benefits estoppel theory analysis in Carlile noting cases cited in support of analysis “involved contractual consent to jurisdiction — not assertion of personal jurisdiction over a non-contracting party on the basis of a consent-to-jurisdiction clause s

2019Ventures, L.P. v. Sheldon, 526 S.W.3d 428, 444 (Tex. 2017) (“Courts recognizing the validity of [transaction participant] theory [to enforce forum-selection clause] have done so solely in the context of a nonsignatory defendant attempting to enforce a forum-selection clause against a signatory plaintiff, who did not want the clause enforced, and not the converse.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). - 11 - 04-19-00356-CV (“Even if we assume that Rawlinson ultimately obtained confidential information from the Texas- based servers and gave it to EquaTerra in breach of the various restrictive co

2017See id. (citing Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 589 , 111 S. Ct. 1522 , 113 L.Ed.2d 622 (1991); Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 , 472 n.14, 105 S. Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985); Baker Hughes Inc. v. Brooks, 405 S.W.3d 246, 249 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. denied); RSR Corp. v. Siegmund, 309 S.W.3d 686, 704 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.).

2017See id. (citing Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 589 , 111 S. Ct. 1522 , 113 L.Ed.2d 622 (1991); Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 , 472 n.14, 105 S. Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985); Baker Hughes Inc. v. Brooks, 405 S.W.3d 246, 249 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. denied); RSR Corp. v. Siegmund, 309 S.W.3d 686, 704 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.).

2017See id. (citing Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 589 , 111 S. Ct. 1522 , 113 L.Ed.2d 622 (1991); Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 , 472 n.14, 105 S. Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985); Baker Hughes Inc. v. Brooks, 405 S.W.3d 246, 249 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. denied); RSR Corp. v. Siegmund, 309 S.W.3d 686, 704 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.).

2017Alattar v. Kay Holdings, Inc., 485 S.W.3d 113, 117 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.).

2016See Hoffman v. Burroughs Corp., 571 F.Supp. 545, 547 (N.D.Tex.1982) (construing language of forum selection clause covering “any action relating to [agreement]” as broad enough to encompass claims of fraudulent inducement and breach of warranties); In re Int’l Profit Assocs., Inc., 274 S.W.3d 672, 677 (Tex.2009) (construing forum selection clause under contractual interpretation principles); Parrot-Ice Drink Prods., 2010 WL 1236322 , at *4 (construing consent to jurisdiction clause under contractual interpretation principles); RSR Corp., 309 S.W.3d at 700-01 (construing language "[a]ll dispute

2016See Hoffman v. Burroughs Corp., 571 F.Supp. 545, 547 (N.D.Tex.1982) (construing language of forum selection clause covering “any action relating to [agreement]” as broad enough to encompass claims of fraudulent inducement and breach of warranties); In re Int’l Profit Assocs., Inc., 274 S.W.3d 672, 677 (Tex.2009) (construing forum selection clause under contractual interpretation principles); Parrot-Ice Drink Prods., 2010 WL 1236322 , at *4 (construing consent to jurisdiction clause under contractual interpretation principles); RSR Corp., 309 S.W.3d at 700-01 (construing language "[a]ll dispute

2016See Hoffman v. Burroughs Corp., 571 F.Supp. 545, 547 (N.D.Tex.1982) (construing language of forum selection clause covering “any action relating to [agreement]” as broad enough to encompass claims of fraudulent inducement and breach of warranties); In re Int’l Profit Assocs., Inc., 274 S.W.3d 672, 677 (Tex.2009) (construing forum selection clause under contractual interpretation principles); Parrot-Ice Drink Prods., 2010 WL 1236322 , at *4 (construing consent to jurisdiction clause under contractual interpretation principles); RSR Corp., 309 S.W.3d at 700-01 (construing language "[a]ll dispute

1997Co. v. Transportes de Nuevo Laredo, 879 F.Supp. 699, 700 (S.D.Tex.1994); Kern v. Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc., 867 F.Supp. 525, 536 (S.D.Tex.1994); Samuelson v. Honeywell, 863 F.Supp. 1503, 1507 (E.D.Okla.1994); Leonard v. USA Petroleum Corp., 829 F.Supp. 882, 886-90 (S.D.Tex.1993); Follette v. Clairol, Inc., 829 F.Supp. 840, 843-44 (W.D.La.), aff'd, 998 F.2d 1014 (1993). [8] The Conners argue that sections 32, 43, and 44 of the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) CONFLICT OF LAWS recognize the doctrine of consent to jurisdiction, but they fail to cite any Texas authority adopting the RESTATEMENT.

1997Co. v. Transportes de Nuevo Laredo, 879 F.Supp. 699, 700 (S.D.Tex.1994); Kern v. Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc., 867 F.Supp. 525, 536 (S.D.Tex.1994); Samuelson v. Honeywell, 863 F.Supp. 1503, 1507 (E.D.Okla.1994); Leonard v. USA Petroleum Corp., 829 F.Supp. 882, 886-90 (S.D.Tex.1993); Follette v. Clairol, Inc., 829 F.Supp. 840, 843-44 (W.D.La.), aff'd, 998 F.2d 1014 (1993). [8] The Conners argue that sections 32, 43, and 44 of the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) CONFLICT OF LAWS recognize the doctrine of consent to jurisdiction, but they fail to cite any Texas authority adopting the RESTATEMENT.

1997Co. v. Transportes de Nuevo Laredo, 879 F.Supp. 699, 700 (S.D.Tex.1994); Kern v. Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc., 867 F.Supp. 525, 536 (S.D.Tex.1994); Samuelson v. Honeywell, 863 F.Supp. 1503, 1507 (E.D.Okla.1994); Leonard v. USA Petroleum Corp., 829 F.Supp. 882, 886-90 (S.D.Tex.1993); Follette v. Clairol, Inc., 829 F.Supp. 840, 843-44 (W.D.La.), aff'd, 998 F.2d 1014 (1993). [8] The Conners argue that sections 32, 43, and 44 of the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) CONFLICT OF LAWS recognize the doctrine of consent to jurisdiction, but they fail to cite any Texas authority adopting the RESTATEMENT.

1997Co. v. Transportes de Nuevo Laredo, 879 F.Supp. 699, 700 (S.D.Tex.1994); Kern v. Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc., 867 F.Supp. 525, 536 (S.D.Tex.1994); Samuelson v. Honeywell, 863 F.Supp. 1503, 1507 (E.D.Okla.1994); Leonard v. USA Petroleum Corp., 829 F.Supp. 882, 886-90 (S.D.Tex.1993); Follette v. Clairol, Inc., 829 F.Supp. 840, 843-44 (W.D.La.), aff'd, 998 F.2d 1014 (1993). [8] The Conners argue that sections 32, 43, and 44 of the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) CONFLICT OF LAWS recognize the doctrine of consent to jurisdiction, but they fail to cite any Texas authority adopting the RESTATEMENT.

1997Co. v. Transportes de Nuevo Laredo, 879 F.Supp. 699, 700 (S.D.Tex.1994); Kern v. Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc., 867 F.Supp. 525, 536 (S.D.Tex.1994); Samuelson v. Honeywell, 863 F.Supp. 1503, 1507 (E.D.Okla.1994); Leonard v. USA Petroleum Corp., 829 F.Supp. 882, 886-90 (S.D.Tex.1993); Follette v. Clairol, Inc., 829 F.Supp. 840, 843-44 (W.D.La.), aff'd, 998 F.2d 1014 (1993). [8] The Conners argue that sections 32, 43, and 44 of the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) CONFLICT OF LAWS recognize the doctrine of consent to jurisdiction, but they fail to cite any Texas authority adopting the RESTATEMENT.

1980In our case, however, New York law applies because that is where the judgment was rendered, O’Brien v. Lanpar Co., 399 S.W.2d 340, 341 (Tex.1966), and New York courts hold these clauses valid.