Ordinarily, when evaluating the contacts of distinct legal entities, the contacts of parent corporations and subsidiaries are evaluated separately for jurisdictional purposes, unless the corporate veil is pierced. On first glance, that doesn’t appear to be what happened in Cornerstone Healthcare Group Holding, Inc. v. Nautic Management VI, L.P. The key to understanding this opinion
Special Appearance
Personal Jurisdiction Notes
By Mike Northrup on
Posted in Special Appearance
Personal Jurisdiction challenges is one area of the law that I’ve found interesting since I took Dean Frank Newton’s conflicts of law class in law school. Recently there have been a number of personal jurisdiction opinions that have come out. I’ve summarized what I see as the highlights of some of those cases below:
- In Jackson
…
Jurisdictional Discovery: Don’t Jump the Gun on Depositions!
By Mike Northrup on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
This blog entry comes courtesy of Cowles & Thompson‘s Melinda Newman:
The Eastland Court of Appeals recently held that a trial court abused its discretion by refusing to hear a special appearance motion filed by a California corporation until after the defendant’s corporate representative appeared for deposition in Texas. In IRN Realty Corporation v. …
Discovery in challenges to the exercise of personal jurisdiction
By Mike Northrup on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
The Houston First District Court of Appeals has held that a trial court abused its discretion by denying the plaintiffs discovery of jurisdictional facts pertaining to the defendants’ personal appearance. In Lamar v. Poncon, John and Nanci Lamar sued Eric Poncon, Morgan’s Rock Hacienda, and Ecolodge for negligence in causing injuries arising out of…
Waiver of Special Appearances in Default Challenges
By Mike Northrup on
Posted in Special Appearance
The San Antonio Court of Appeals has held that a party challenging a default judgment may well risk losing the opportunity to challenge the exercise of personal jurisdiction over him unless special precautions are taken.
In Boyd v. Kobierowski, Kobierowski, a Texas resident, sued Boyd, a California resident, in Texas for breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation and DTPA violations. All causes of action arose from the sale of a vehicle Boyd sold to Kobierowski.
Boyd did not answer the suit and Kobierowski took a default judgment against Boyd. Boyd subsequently filed a restricted appeal to challenge the default judgment. He prevailed on appeal because of a defect in personal service. See Appeal No. 04-06-0041-CV.
On remand, Kobierowski repeatedly tried to get Boyd to answer the suit, but Boyd did not respond. Kobierowski then took a second default judgment. Boyd subsequently filed a special appearance and a motion for new trial subject to the special appearance. The trial court denied the special appearance, but granted the motion for new trial. In a second (interlocutory) appeal, Boyd argued that it was error to deny his special appearance.Continue Reading Waiver of Special Appearances in Default Challenges
Pro Se Letter Waived Special Appearance
By Byron Henry on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments, Special Appearance
The Dallas Court of Appeals held that a pro se letter from an Illinois resident denying liability and requesting an extension of time to retain counsel and file a "complete answer" waived the defendant’s subsequent special appearance. The defendant argued that the letter did not consitute an answer. The court held that the letter constituted an answer. …