Saldivar v. White

• Decision Date: 30 March 2022
• Docket Number: 04-21-00241-CV
• Parties: Lucia SALDIVAR, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Mark Anthony Saldivar, Appellant v. Joshua F. WHITE, Individually and d/b/a 88 Classic Records, and 88 Classic LLC, Appellees
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Lucia SALDIVAR, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Mark Anthony Saldivar, Appellant
v.
Joshua F. WHITE, Individually and d/b/a 88 Classic Records, and 88 Classic LLC, Appellees

No. 04-21-00241-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio

March 30, 2022

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2018-CI-11437 Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

AFFIRMED

This is an appeal from an order granting appellees' special appearances and dismissing claims against them for lack of personal jurisdiction. We affirm.

Background

Appellant Lucia Saldivar filed a wrongful death suit on her own behalf and as representative of the estate of Mark Anthony Saldivar ("Saldivar"), her son. Appellant alleges in her original petition that, on or about April 23, 2017, Taymor Travon McIntyre killed Saldivar in San Antonio, Texas during a robbery. McIntyre then fled the state. He remained at large for

1

several months, and was apprehended later in New Jersey. McIntyre was listed as the only defendant in the original petition.

Appellant filed an amended petition adding as defendants appellees Joshua F. White, individually and doing business as 88 Classic Records, and 88 Classic, LLC.^[1] In the amended petition, appellant alleges that appellees "encouraged and/or manipulated" McIntyre to commit crimes to promote sales of his music. Further, appellant alleges that 88 Classic, LLC purchased McIntyre's music and that payment for the music rights was placed in an irrevocable spendthrift trust with White, a principal of 88 Classic, LLC, as the manager of the trust. Appellant asserts that the sale of music rights constitutes a fraudulent conveyance of assets to avoid claims by creditors. Appellant requests all relief available under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act ("TUFTA"). See Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. §§ 24.001-24.013.

Appellees filed special appearances to contest the trial court's exercise of personal jurisdiction and submitted an affidavit by White. Appellant filed a response and attached the trust formation document and emails regarding a loan from the trust. The trial court held a non-evidentiary hearing, and after the hearing, signed an order granting the special appearances and dismissing the claims against appellees. Appellant appeals from this order. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 54.014(a)(7) (allowing for interlocutory appeal from order granting special appearance).

Standard of Review & Applicable Law

"A court must have both subject matter jurisdiction over a case and personal jurisdiction over the parties to issue a binding judgment." Luciano v. SprayFoamPolymers.com, LLC, 625 S.W.3d 1, 7-8 (Tex. 2021). Personal jurisdiction involves a court's ability to bind a particular

2

party to that judgment. Luciano, 625 S.W.3d at 8. A special appearance allows a nonresident to appear in a Texas court for the limited purpose of challenging the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 120a(1). Whether a court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant is a question of law we review de novo. Kelly v. Gen. Interior Const., Inc., 301 S.W.3d 653, 657 (Tex. 2010). Resolving this question of law, however, may require a court to decide questions of fact. Luciano, 625 S.W.3d at 8. When, as here, the trial court does not issue findings of fact and conclusions of law, we presume all factual disputes were resolved in favor of the trial court's decision unless they are challenged on appeal. Id.

The plaintiff bears the initial burden of alleging facts that establish the trial court's jurisdiction. Searcy v. Parex Res., Inc., 496 S.W.3d 58, 66 (Tex. 2016). If the plaintiff fails to plead facts to bring the defendant within the reach of the court's jurisdiction, the defendant need only prove that it does not live in Texas to negate personal jurisdiction. See Kelly, 301 S.W.3d at 658-59. Once the plaintiff has met its burden to plead sufficient jurisdictional allegations, the burden shifts to the defendant to negate all potential bases for personal jurisdiction that exist in the plaintiff's pleadings. Id. at 658. The defendant can negate jurisdiction on either a factual or legal basis. Id. at 659. Factually, the defendant can present evidence that it has no contacts with Texas, and the plaintiff can respond with its own evidence to affirm its allegations. Id. Legally, the defendant can show that even if the plaintiff's allegations are true, the evidence is legally insufficient to establish jurisdiction. Id.

Texas courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident if the Texas long-arm statute authorizes the exercise of jurisdiction, and the exercise of jurisdiction is consistent with federal and state due process guarantees. Moncrief Oil Intern. Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, 414 S.W.3d 142, 149 (Tex. 2013). Under Texas's long-arm statute, Texas courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant that "does business" in Texas. See Tex. Civ. Prac. &

3

Rem. Code Ann. § 17.042; PHC-Minden, L.P, v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 235 S.W.3d 163, 166 (Tex. 2007). A nonresident "does business" in Texas if, among other things, it "commits a tort in whole or in part" in the state. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 17.042(2). The list, however, is not exclusive, and "Texas's long-arm statute 'extends Texas courts' personal jurisdiction as far as the federal constitutional requirements of due process will permit." M&F Worldwide Corp. v. Pepsi-Cola Metro. Bottling Co., 512 S.W.3d 878, 885 (Tex. 2017); see PHC-Minden, 235 S.W.3d at 166.

A state's exercise of jurisdiction comports with federal due process guarantees if the nonresident defendant has "minimum contacts" with the state and the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. M&F Worldwide, 512 S.W.3d at 885; PHC-Minden, 235 S.W.3d at 166. When a nonresident defendant purposefully avails itself of the privileges and benefits of conducting business in Texas, its contacts are sufficient to confer Texas courts with personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant. Moncrief Oil, 414 S.W.3d at 150. Only the defendant's purposeful contacts are relevant to the inquiry; unilateral activity of another party or third person, as well as random, isolated, or fortuitous contacts by the defendant, are insufficient to prove the defendant purposefully availed itself of the forum. Cornerstone Healthcare Grp. Holding, Inc. v. Nautic Mgmt. VI, L.P., 493 S.W.3d 65, 70 (Tex. 2016). Once minimum contacts have been established, the exercise of jurisdiction will typically...