Raul Luna Acad. v. E&M Estates & Prop. Mgmt.

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Ken Wise Justice
• Docket Number: 14-24-00470-CV
• Decision Date: 08 January 2026
• Citation: Raul Luna Acad. v. E&M Estates & Prop. Mgmt., 14-24-00470-CV (Tex. App. Jan 08, 2026)
• Parties: RAUL LUNA ACADEMY, LLC AND RAUL LUNA, Appellants v. E&M ESTATES AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, EAGLEVIEW PROPERTIES, LLC, GONZALEZ INVESTOR BROTHERS, LLC, INVESTORS SUCCESS TA, LLC, LALO PROPERTIES, LLC, MIGUEL GONZALEZ, OCHOA REAL ESTATE PROPERTIES, LLC AND ROCKY MOUNTAIN INVESTING, LLC, Appellees

1

RAUL LUNA ACADEMY, LLC AND RAUL LUNA, Appellants v. E&M ESTATES AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, EAGLEVIEW PROPERTIES, LLC, GONZALEZ INVESTOR BROTHERS, LLC, INVESTORS SUCCESS TA, LLC, LALO PROPERTIES, LLC, MIGUEL GONZALEZ, OCHOA REAL ESTATE PROPERTIES, LLC AND ROCKY MOUNTAIN INVESTING, LLC, Appellees

No. 14-24-00470-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District

January 8, 2026

On Appeal from the 157th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2023-17218

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Bridges, and Antú.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Ken Wise Justice

In this interlocutory appeal, appellants Raul Luna Academy, LLC and Raul Luna (collectively, the Luna defendants) challenge the trial court's denial of their special appearance. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(7) (authorizing interlocutory appeal from denial of special appearance). More specifically, the Luna defendants contend that they are not subject to specific or general jurisdiction and that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over them offends traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Because we determine that the Luna defendants do not have sufficient contacts with Texas to subject them to either general or specific jurisdiction, we reverse the trial court's order denying the Luna defendants' special appearance and render judgment dismissing appellees' claims against them for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Background

Appellees are a group of real estate investors. Their suit alleges that various defendants, including the Luna defendants,^[1] engaged in a scheme designed to circumvent the requirements of the Texas Securities Act by soliciting investors like appellees to invest in non-exempt unregistered securities disguised as real estate joint ventures. Appellees contend that certain real estate academies, including Raul Luna Academy, solicit unsuspecting investors via social media and educational seminars and then introduce them to an issuer of securities who sells them non-exempt unregistered securities in violation of the Texas Securities Act and federal securities laws.

More specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the Luna defendants and the other real estate academy defendants "successfully lured Plaintiffs, who reside in several states across the United States, through their general solicitation online and live methods, and then introduced Plaintiffs to Padilla, Seatac and Smart Infinity, who then later offered non-exempt unregistered securities."

Appellees' lawsuit further alleges that the issuer defendants sold them certain interests in five separate real estate development opportunities in Washington state.

Appellees allege that the issuer defendants then incumbered the properties with heavy construction loans, used appellees' funds for other projects without appellees' knowledge, improperly commingled the funds and lined their own pockets. Against the Luna defendants appellees assert causes of action for violations of the Texas Securities Act; federal securities violations, including securities fraud; fraud and fraudulent inducement; and conspiracy.

Concerning jurisdiction, appellees' live pleading asserts that all of the defendants "do business in Texas and have significant contacts with Harris County." As to the Luna defendants and the other real estate academy defendants appellees alleged that they "hold online courses in Texas, live seminars and retreats in Texas and permit Texas participants to participate in their online classes, chats, meetings, etc., and contract with Texan issuers to permit such Texan issuers, like Padilla, Smart Infinity and Seatac, to offer securities on their social media platforms."

Raul Luna Academy is a Florida limited liability company owned and managed by Raul Luna. Raul Luna is a Florida resident. In response to appellees' suit, the Luna defendants filed a special appearance, supported by an affidavit from Raul Luna and challenging the trial court's jurisdiction over them as nonresident defendants. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 120a. After some jurisdictional discovery, appellees responded to the special appearance and contended that the Luna defendants made false assertions concerning their contacts with Texas. The Luna defendants amended their special appearance and provided an updated affidavit to clarify their position. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the special appearance. This interlocutory appeal followed.

Standard of Review

In a personal jurisdiction challenge, the plaintiff and defendant bear shifting burdens of proof. See Kelly v. Gen. Interior Constr., Inc., 301 S.W.3d 653, 658 (Tex. 2010). The plaintiff bears the initial burden to plead sufficient allegations to bring the nonresident defendant within the reach of Texas's long-arm statute. Id. The defendant may then challenge personal jurisdiction by filing a special appearance. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 120a. To prevail, the defendant must negate all bases of personal jurisdiction alleged by the plaintiff. Kelly, 301 S.W.3d at 658. The defendant can defeat jurisdiction on either factual or legal grounds. Id. at 659. To defeat jurisdiction on factual grounds, the defendant can produce evidence contradicting the plaintiff's factual allegations in support of personal jurisdiction; the plaintiff can respond with its own evidence. Id. Alternatively, to defeat jurisdiction on legal grounds, the defendant can show that "even if the plaintiff's alleged facts are true, the evidence is legally insufficient to establish jurisdiction" or that "the defendant's contacts with Texas fall short of purposeful availment." Id.

Whether a trial court has personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant is a question of law that we review de novo. BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co. KG v. Shaik, 716 S.W.3d 98, 103 (Tex. 2025). When, as here, the trial court did not issue findings of fact or conclusions of law, we imply all relevant facts that are necessary to support the trial court's judgment and supported by the evidence. State v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, 669 S.W.3d 399, 413 (Tex. 2023). But when the appellate record includes the reporter's record and the clerk's record, those implied findings can be challenged for legal and factual sufficiency. BMC Software Belg., N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789, 795 (Tex. 2002).

Personal Jurisdiction

Texas courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if: "(1) the Texas long-arm statute authorizes the exercise of jurisdiction, and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction is consistent with federal and state constitutional due-process guarantees." Old Republic Nat'l Title Ins. Co. v. Bell, 549 S.W.3d 550, 558 (Tex. 2018) (quoting Moncrief Oil Int'l v. OAO Gazprom, 414 S.W.3d 142, 149 (Tex. 2013)); see also Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569, 574 (Tex. 2007). The long-arm statute is satisfied by a defendant doing business in Texas, including by contracting with a Texas resident where either party is to perform the contract in Texas; by committing a tort in Texas; or by recruiting Texas residents directly or through an intermediary located in Texas for employment inside or outside of Texas. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 17.042. Because the long-arm statute extends personal jurisdiction "as far as the federal constitutional requirements of due process will allow," the statute is satisfied if the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with federal due process. Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 575 (quoting Guardian Royal Exch. Assurance, Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.C., 815 S.W.2d 223, 226 (Tex. 1991)).^[2]

A. Minimum Contacts

Under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, jurisdiction is proper if a nonresident defendant has established "minimum contacts" with Texas and maintenance of the suit does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (internal quotations omitted). The purpose of the minimum-contacts analysis is to protect the defendant from being haled into court when its relationship with the forum is too attenuated to support jurisdiction. Schlobohm v. Schapiro, 784 S.W.2d 355, 357 (Tex. 1990). Accordingly, we focus on the defendant's activities and expectations in deciding whether it is proper to call the defendant before a Texas court. Id.

The minimum-contacts analysis requires that a defendant "purposefully avail" itself of the privilege of conducting activities within Texas, thus invoking the benefits and protections of our laws. TV Azteca v. Ruiz, 490 S.W.3d 29, 37 (Tex. 2016). The defendant's activities, whether they consist of direct acts within Texas or conduct outside Texas, must justify a conclusion that the defendant could reasonably anticipate being called into a Texas court. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980). The minimum-contacts analysis focuses on the quality and nature of the defendant's contacts, not their number. Guardian Royal, 815 S.W.2d at 230 n.11. We consider three factors in determining whether a defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in Texas:

First, only the defendant's contacts with the forum are relevant, not the unilateral activity of another party or a third person. Second, the contacts relied upon must be purposeful rather than random, fortuitous, or attenuated. . . . Finally, the defendant must seek some benefit, advantage[,] or profit by availing itself of the jurisdiction.

Moncrief Oil, 414 S.W.3d at 151 (quoting Retamco Operating, Inc. v. Republic Drilling Co., 278 S.W.3d 333, 339 (Tex. 2009)). A defendant's contacts with a forum can give rise to either general or specific jurisdiction. Id. at 150; see also TV Azteca, 490 S.W.3d at 37....