CSR Ltd. v. Link
| Citation | 925 S.W.2d 591 |
| Decision Date | 16 August 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-0933,95-0933 |
| Parties | Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 14,666, 39 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 767 CSR LIMITED, Relator, v. The Honorable Scott LINK, Judge, Respondent. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Texas |
Robin P. Hartman, Haynes and Boone, Dallas, Lynne Liberato, Beth Fancsali, Haynes and Boone, Houston, for relator.
Hartley Hampton, Young & Hampton, Houston, Marvin B. Peterson, Law Office of Marvin B. Peterson, Houston, Gary D. Elliston, DeHay & Elliston, Dallas, Jeffrey D. Roberts, Roberts Markel & Folger, Houston, James D. Smith, Dunn Kacal Adams Pappas & Law, Houston, T. John Ward, Brown McCarroll & Oaks Hartline, Longview, Kathryn Hermes, Patterson Lamberty Stanford & Walls, Dallas, Sharla J. Frost, James H. Powers, Powers & Frost, Houston, J. Michael Myers, Ball & Weed, San Antonio, Russell Ramsey, Ramsey & Murray, Houston, David W. Starnes, Strong Pipkin Nelson & Bissell, Beaumont, Jeffrey B. McClure, Butler & Binion, Houston, Mark R. Pharr, III, Galloway Johnson Tompkins & Burr, Houston, Richard N. Countiss, Law Office of Richard N. Countiss, Houston, James Mayer Harris, Holmes & Harris, Beaumont, David L. Lyle, Jr., Ness Motley Loadholt Richardson & Poole, Charleston, SC, Warren A. Gage, Cowles & Thompson, Dallas, Kevin J. Maguire, Strasburger & Price, Dallas, Robert E. Ballard, Abraham & Watkins, Houston, Stephen M. Vaughan, Mandell & Wright, Houston, F. Richard Leach, Ross Banks May Cron & Cavin, Houston, Gregg Morrison, Cook & Butler, Houston, C. Victor Haley, Fairchild Price Thomas & Haley, Center, Weldon Funderburk, Funderburk & Funderburk, Houston, Michael R. Ross, Law Offices of Michael R. Ross, Houston, John E. Williams, Jr., Williams Bailey & Wesner, Houston, Steven J. Kherkher, Williams Bailey Wesner & Kherkher, Houston, Ned Johnson, Johnson & Associates, Houston, John L. Hill, Liddell Sapp Zivley Hill & LaBoon, Houston, Peter A. Moir, Baker & Botts, Dallas, William J. Cozort, Jr., Bean & Manning, Houston, R. Lyn Stevens, Stevens & Baldo, Beaumont, Scott Baldwin, Baldwin & Baldwin, Marshall, Byron Sims, Brown Sims Wise & White, Houston, Brian S. Clary, Livingston & Markle, Houston, Sandra F. Clark, Mehaffy & Weber, Beaumont, Robert E. Thackston, Vial Hamilton Koch & Knox, Dallas, for respondent.
This original proceeding concerns the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation by Texas courts. Although mandamus does not ordinarily lie from the denial of a special appearance, exceptional circumstances may warrant this extraordinary relief. In this case, we find that mandamus is appropriate and conditionally grant the writ.
CSR Limited is a corporation organized under the laws of New South Wales, Australia, with its principal place of business in Sydney, Australia. For a period of time before 1967, CSR was the agent for sales of raw asbestos fiber mined by a subsidiary, Australian Blue Asbestos Proprietary, Limited. The Johns-Manville Corporation purchased this raw asbestos fiber and resold it in the United States. Johns-Manville was the only company marketing CSR's fiber in this country.
On August 23, 1957, CSR sold 363 tons of raw Australian blue asbestos to Johns-Manville. CSR sold the asbestos to Johns-Manville F.O.B. Fremantle, Australia, so that title to the fiber passed to Johns-Manville when Johns-Manville loaded the fiber onto the ship in Australia. Johns-Manville shipped the asbestos to Houston; the fiber was eventually used for the manufacture of transite pipe. The plaintiffs in the underlying suit allege that they were injured by exposure to CSR asbestos used to manufacture pipe.
Because of the large number of asbestos cases that have been filed, the Harris County district courts have created a Master Asbestos File under the authority of local rule. HARRIS COUNTY (TEX.) DIST. CT. LOC. R R. 3.2.3(c); In re: Asbestos Cases, Cause No. 90-23333. The judge presiding over the Master Asbestos File rules on issues common to the individual asbestos cases in Harris County. Those rulings in the Master Asbestos File control all asbestos cases currently pending or that may be filed in Harris County. See Standing Order No. 2, In re: Asbestos Cases, Cause No. 90-23333 (Dist. Ct. of Harris County). CSR filed a special appearance in the Master Asbestos File asserting that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over the company. Judge Link, the respondent in this case, overruled the motion. The court of appeals denied CSR leave to file its petition for writ of mandamus. CSR now seeks mandamus relief in this Court to prevent the trial court from asserting personal jurisdiction over it.
A court must possess both subject matter jurisdiction over a case and personal jurisdiction over a party to issue a binding judgment. See Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 701-03, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 2103-05, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982). While subject matter jurisdiction refers to the court's power to hear a particular type of suit, personal jurisdiction concerns the court's power to bind a particular person or party. See 1 CASAD, JURISDICTION IN CIVIL ACTIONS § 1.01 (2d ed.1991). This case involves the trial court's personal jurisdiction over CSR.
A court may assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if the requirements of both the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Texas long-arm statute are satisfied. See U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1; TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE § 17.042; Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 413-14, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 1871-72, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984). The long-arm statute allows a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant that does business in Texas. In addition to a discrete list of activities that constitute doing business in Texas, the statute provides that "other acts" by the nonresident can satisfy the requirement. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE § 17.042; Guardian Royal Exch. Assurance, Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.C., 815 S.W.2d 223, 226 (Tex.1991). Our Court has repeatedly interpreted this broad statutory language "to reach as far as the federal constitutional requirements of due process will allow." Guardian Royal, 815 S.W.2d at 226; see also U-Anchor Advertising, Inc. v. Burt, 553 S.W.2d 760, 762 (Tex.1977). Consequently, the requirements of the Texas long-arm statute are satisfied if the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with federal due process limitations. See Guardian Royal, 815 S.W.2d at 226.
Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a defendant must have certain minimum contacts with the forum "such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.' " International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 343, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940)). A nonresident defendant that has purposefully availed itself of the privileges and benefits of conducting business in the foreign jurisdiction has sufficient contacts with the forum to confer personal jurisdiction. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475-76, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2183-84, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). A defendant should not be subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign court based upon "random," "fortuitous," or "attenuated" contacts. Id. Minimum contacts are particularly important when the defendant is from a different country because of the unique and onerous burden placed on a party called upon to defend a suit in a foreign legal system. See Asahi Metal Industry Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 114, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 1033, 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987).
A defendant's contacts with a forum can give rise to either general or specific jurisdiction. General jurisdiction is present when a defendant's contacts are continuous and systematic, permitting the forum to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant even if the cause of action did not arise from or relate to activities conducted within the forum state. See Schlobohm v. Schapiro, 784 S.W.2d 355, 357 (Tex.1990). General jurisdiction requires a showing that the defendant conducted substantial activities within the forum, a more demanding minimum contacts analysis than for specific jurisdiction. See Guardian Royal, 815 S.W.2d at 228. In contrast, specific jurisdiction is established if the defendant's alleged liability arises from or is related to an activity conducted within the forum. See id. at 227.
CSR is an Australian company headquartered in Sydney. It has no offices in Texas, no employees in Texas, and no bank accounts in Texas. CSR has not solicited business in Texas and has not sent any correspondence to Texas. CSR has never owned property in Texas and has never paid taxes in Texas. CSR has never entered into a contract in Texas. Under these facts, CSR did not have systematic and continuous contacts with Texas sufficient to support general jurisdiction. 1
CSR also argues that the trial court does not have specific jurisdiction in this case because the company conducted no activity in or related to Texas. It is undisputed that CSR sold Johns-Manville a shipment of 363 tons of raw asbestos that was sent directly to Houston in August of 1957. But title to the asbestos passed to Johns-Manville in Australia and there is no evidence that CSR controlled or participated in the decision to ship the fiber to Texas. The plaintiffs contend, however, that CSR knew that one of Johns-Manville's plants was in Denison, Texas. The plaintiffs argue that CSR could have foreseen that its raw asbestos fiber would be used in Texas. Therefore, they argue, CSR should be subject to the personal jurisdiction of Texas courts.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Merriman v. Crompton Corp., No. 91,702.
...involving other component parts or raw materials. E.g., In re Minnesota Asbestos Litigation, 552 N.W.2d 242 (Minn.1996); CSR Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591 (Tex.1996). One such case has many factual similarities to the present case and applied the Kansas long arm statute. Four B Corp. v. Ueno......
-
In re Acad., Ltd.
...148 S.W.3d at 137 (quoting In re Masonite Corp. , 997 S.W.2d 194, 198 (Tex. 1999) (orig. proceeding) ); see also CSR Ltd. v. Link , 925 S.W.2d 591, 596–97 (Tex. 1996) (orig. proceeding) (holding that the "exceptional circumstances" associated with mass tort litigation, including the use of ......
-
Villagomez v. Rockwood Specialties, Inc.
...the forum, a more demanding minimum contacts analysis than for specific jurisdiction." BMC, 83 S.W.3d at 797 (citing CSR, Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591, 595 (Tex.1996) (orig.proceeding); Guardian Royal, 815 S.W.2d at 228). A nonresident must have conducted more substantial activity in the fo......
-
Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg
...assertion of jurisdiction accords with federal due-process limitations. Am. Type Culture Collection, 83 S.W.3d at 806; CSR Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591, 594 (Tex.1996); Schlobohm, 784 S.W.2d at Federal due-process requirements limit a state's power to assert personal jurisdiction over a non......
-
Civil Litigation
...due process limits. [ International Shoe Co. v. Washington , 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945); CSR v. Link , 925 S.W.2d 591, 594 (Tex. 1996).] Jurisdiction over a corporation does not confer jurisdiction over an individual officer, director, or shareholder of a corporatio......