specific-jurisdiction analysis in Texas

2020See Guardian Royal, 815 S.W.2d at 228 .

2019Assurance, Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.C., 815 S.W.2d 223, 226 (Tex. 1991) (explaining that a specific-jurisdiction analysis requires review of the “relationship among the defendant, the forum[,] and the 6 We therefore will not address Lucas’s and Invenias’s appellate arguments against general jurisdiction. 9 litigation”).

2025“This specific-jurisdiction analysis involves ‘two co-equal components’: purposeful availment and relatedness.” Id. (quoting Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 579 ).

2025Having so concluded, we need not consider the second prong of the specific-jurisdiction analysis: whether appellees’ alleged liability arises out of or is related to the purported minimum contacts.10 See Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 579 .

2024See Helicopteros Nacionales de Colom. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984); Shaffner v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204 (1977).

2022Helicopteros Nacionales de Colom. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984).

2026See, e.g., PHC–Minden, L.P. v. Kimberly–Clark Corp., 235 S.W.3d 163 , 172–76 (Tex. 2007). 6 2 Specific-jurisdiction analysis involves the co-equal components of purposeful availment and relatedness.

2013General jurisdiction requires a “more demanding minimum contacts analysis” than a specific-jurisdiction inquiry, id. (quoting CSR, 925 S.W.2d at 595 ), with a “substantially higher” threshold, id. (quoting 4 WRIGHT & MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 1067.5 (2007)).

2025See Old Republic, 549 S.W.3d at 558 . 8Fig’s sole argument as to this element of the specific-jurisdiction test is that its cause of action arose from or was related to Clearco’s activities in Texas because its financial harm was felt at its headquarters in Austin.

2020Old Republic, 549 S.W.3d at 559 (citing Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777, 795 (Tex. 2005)); see Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 575–76 (explaining that a specific-jurisdiction analysis requires review of the “relationship among the defendant, the forum[,] and the litigation” (alteration in original) (citation omitted)). 7 Specific jurisdiction must be established on a claim-by-claim basis unless all the asserted claims arise from the same forum contacts.

2024See Helicopteros Nacionales de Colom. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984); Shaffner v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204 (1977).

2022See Helicopteros Nacionales de Colom. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984); Shaffner v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204 (1977).

2023Even if courts find purposeful availment, specific jurisdiction exists only “when the cause of action arises from or is related to purposeful activities in the state.” Moncrief Oil, 414 S.W.3d at 150 .

2023Id. at 150 .

2016General jurisdiction, by contrast, exists when the defendant’s “affiliations with the [forum] State are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum State.” Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011).

2016General jurisdiction, by contrast, exists when the defendant’s “affiliations with the [forum] State are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum State.” Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011).

2014See Seiferth v. Helicopteros Atuneros, Inc., 472 F.3d 266, 274 (5th Cir. 2006) (“[I]f a plaintiff’s claims relate to different forum contacts of the defendant, specific jurisdiction must be established for each claim.”); cf. Touradji v. Beach Capital P’ship, L.P., 316 S.W.3d 15, 26 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.) (noting that “when separate claims are based on the same forum contacts, a separate analysis of each claim is not required”); cf. also Davis Invs., VI, LP v. Holtgraves, No. 14–08–00222–CV, 2009 WL 975961 , at *12 n.7 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 26, 2009, pet. d

2009See Seiferth v. Helicopteros Atuneros, Inc. , 472 F.3d 266 , 274 B 75 (5th Cir. 2006) (analyzing specific jurisdiction on a claim-by-claim basis because the Due Process Clause prohibits the legitimate exercise of specific jurisdiction over a defendant with respect to one claim to justify the exercise of specific jurisdiction with respect to another claim that does not arise from or relate to the defendant = s forum contacts); Barnhill v. Automated Shrimp Corp. , 222 S.W.3d 756, 767 (Tex. App. B Waco 2007, no pet.).

2013See Retamco Operating, Inc. v. Republic Drilling Co., 278 S.W.3d 333, 338-41 (Tex.2009); Zac Smith & Co. v. Otis Elevator, Inc., 734 S.W.2d 662, 664-66 (Tex. 1987); Nance Int’l, Inc. v. OceanMaster Engineering PTE, Ltd., No. 01-11-00664-CV, 2012 WL 5381224 , at *5-8 (Nov. 1, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.); Intercarga, S.A. v. Fritz Companies, Inc., No. 14-02-00297-CV, 2003 WL 21402583 , at *7-8 (June 19, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.).

2013See Retamco Operating, Inc. v. Republic Drilling Co., 278 S.W.3d 333 , 338–41 (Tex. 2009); Zac Smith & Co. v. Otis Elevator, Inc., 734 S.W.2d 662 , 664–66 (Tex. 1987); Nance Int’l, Inc. v. Oceanmaster Engineering PTE, Ltd., No. 01-11-00664-CV, 2012 WL 5381224 , at *5–8 (Nov. 1, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.); Intercarga, S.A. v. Fritz Companies, Inc., No. 14-02-00297-CV, 2003 WL 21402583 , at *7–8 (June 19, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.).

2025Kelly, 301 S.W.3d at 658 .

2013Instead, the specific-jurisdiction analysis “always centers on the defendant’s actions and choices to enter the forum state and conduct business.” Kelly, 301 S.W.3d at 660 (emphasis in original).

2016The Court reaffirmed that the specific-jurisdiction inquiry “focuses ‘on the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.’ ” Id. at 1121 (quoting Keeton, 465 U.S. at 775 , 104 S.Ct. 1473 ).

2016The Court reaffirmed that the specific-jurisdiction inquiry “focuses ‘on the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.’ ” Id. at 1121 (quoting Keeton, 465 U.S. at 775 , 104 S.Ct. 1473 ).

2020Id.

2016Thus, “the relationship must arise out of contacts that the ‘defendant himself’ creates with the forum State,” id. at 1122 (quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 ), and the “analysis looks.to the defendant’s contacts with the forum State itself, not the defendant’s contacts with persons who reside there,” id. (citing Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 319 , 66 S.Ct. 154 , 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945)).

2021Indeed, we have said that “[w]hile use of a Texas 3 The record does not reveal whether the Texas warehouse was SprayFoam’s sole distribution center, but it is not necessary to determine that because only SprayFoam’s Texas contacts are relevant for the specific-jurisdiction analysis. 10 distributor may satisfy” purposeful availment, “there may be situations in which it does not,” such as when the manufacturer does not “intend[] to serve the Texas market.” Spir Star, 310 S.W.3d at 875 .

2017Spir Star AG v. Kimich, 310 S.W.3d 868, 873 (Tex. 2010); Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569, 575-76 (Tex. 2007) (explaining that a specific-jurisdiction analysis requires review of the “relationship among the defendant, the forum[,] and the litigation.” (alteration in original) (citation omitted)).

2013See Retamco Operating, Inc. v. Republic Drilling Co., 278 S.W.3d 333, 338-41 (Tex.2009); Zac Smith & Co. v. Otis Elevator, Inc., 734 S.W.2d 662, 664-66 (Tex. 1987); Nance Int’l, Inc. v. OceanMaster Engineering PTE, Ltd., No. 01-11-00664-CV, 2012 WL 5381224 , at *5-8 (Nov. 1, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.); Intercarga, S.A. v. Fritz Companies, Inc., No. 14-02-00297-CV, 2003 WL 21402583 , at *7-8 (June 19, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.).

2013See Retamco Operating, Inc. v. Republic Drilling Co., 278 S.W.3d 333 , 338–41 (Tex. 2009); Zac Smith & Co. v. Otis Elevator, Inc., 734 S.W.2d 662 , 664–66 (Tex. 1987); Nance Int’l, Inc. v. Oceanmaster Engineering PTE, Ltd., No. 01-11-00664-CV, 2012 WL 5381224 , at *5–8 (Nov. 1, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.); Intercarga, S.A. v. Fritz Companies, Inc., No. 14-02-00297-CV, 2003 WL 21402583 , at *7–8 (June 19, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.).

2025See id. (“For specific- jurisdiction purposes, purposeful availment has no jurisdictional relevance unless the defendant’s liability arises from or relates to the forum contacts.” (quoting Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569, 579 (Tex.2007)). 7 2.

2022Grp., Inc. v. Rawlinson, 302 S.W.3d 392, 402 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. denied) (holding that the location of servers is a unilateral choice by the owner and, without more, does not constitute a purposeful availment for purposes of satisfying the first component of the specific- jurisdiction analysis).

2021Id. at 876 (quoting Benitez-Allende v. Alcan Aluminio do Brasil, S.A., 857 F.2d 26, 30 (1st Cir. 1988)).

2020Old Republic, 549 S.W.3d at 559 (citing Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777, 795 (Tex. 2005)); see Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 575–76 (explaining that a specific-jurisdiction analysis requires review of the “relationship among the defendant, the forum[,] and the litigation” (alteration in original) (citation omitted)). 7 Specific jurisdiction must be established on a claim-by-claim basis unless all the asserted claims arise from the same forum contacts.

2018In a specific-jurisdiction analysis, we consider “the relationship between the defendant, the forum state, and the litigation”; for jurisdiction to attach, the “defendant’s contacts with the forum state [must be] substantially connected to the alleged operative facts of the case.” Searcy, 496 S.W.3d at 67, 70 ; see also Guidry v. U.S. Tobacco Co., 188 F.3d 619, 628 (5th Cir. 1999) (“When a nonresident defendant commits a tort within the state, . . . that tortious conduct amounts to sufficient minimum contacts with the state by the defendant to constitutionally permit courts within that state .

2018See Phillips Dev. & Realty, LLC v. LJA Eng’g, Inc., 499 S.W.3d 78, 86 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, pet. denied) (“[I]f the court’s jurisdiction in a specific-jurisdiction analysis hinges on the fact that the defendant entered into a contract with a resident of Texas to be performed in whole or in part by either party in Texas . . . the defendant can defeat the attempted exercise of jurisdiction by a Texas court by proving that it did not enter into such a contract.”).

2018In a specific-jurisdiction analysis, we consider “the relationship between the defendant, the forum state, and the litigation”; for jurisdiction to attach, the “defendant’s contacts with the forum state [must be] substantially connected to the alleged operative facts of the case.” Searcy, 496 S.W.3d at 67, 70 ; see also Guidry v. U.S. Tobacco Co., 188 F.3d 619, 628 (5th Cir. 1999) (“When a nonresident defendant commits a tort within the state, . . . that tortious conduct amounts to sufficient minimum contacts with the state by the defendant to constitutionally permit courts within that state .

2016See Ross F. Meriwether & Assocs., Inc. v. Aulbach, 686 S.W.2d 730, 732 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1985, no writ.).

2014See Seiferth v. Helicopteros Atuneros, Inc., 472 F.3d 266, 274 (5th Cir. 2006) (“[I]f a plaintiff’s claims relate to different forum contacts of the defendant, specific jurisdiction must be established for each claim.”); cf. Touradji v. Beach Capital P’ship, L.P., 316 S.W.3d 15, 26 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.) (noting that “when separate claims are based on the same forum contacts, a separate analysis of each claim is not required”); cf. also Davis Invs., VI, LP v. Holtgraves, No. 14–08–00222–CV, 2009 WL 975961 , at *12 n.7 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 26, 2009, pet. d