Opinion
No. 05-09-00269-CV
Opinion issued March 3, 2010.
On Appeal from the 14th District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 08-15244-A.
Before Justices BRIDGES, LANG, and LANG-MIERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Constance Godenick appeals the trial court's denial of her special appearance. In a single point of error, Godenick argues the trial court erred in denying her special appearance. We affirm the trial court's order denying Godenick's special appearance.
Beginning in 1999, Godenick became an "Independent Associate" of Mannatech selling health, beauty, and dietary supplement products. Godenick alleges she is a resident of South Carolina, and Mannatech is a Texas corporation. The contract between Godenick and Mannatech provided that it was "governed by the laws of the State of Texas," and the parties to the contract agreed "to exclusive venue and to personal jurisdiction in Dallas County, Texas, for the resolution of any claim, demand or cause of action between" the parties. The contract also provided that, for a period of one year following termination of the contract, Godenick would not attempt to recruit Mannatech associates into opportunities or marketing programs of another company. Each year, the parties entered into a new contract with these same provisions. On May 29, 2008, Godenick's employment was terminated. Mannatech alleges that, in November 2008, Godenick contacted Mannatech associates in an attempt to recruit them to a new company Godenick was promoting. In February 2009, Mannatech sued Godenick alleging Godenick improperly accessed Mannatech's proprietary and confidential business records and associate lists to build her new business in violation of the contract between the parties. Godenick filed a special appearance, which the trial court denied. This appeal followed.
The record shows Godenick purchased a house in Houston in December 2005. Godenick married Joe Woolsey, a Houston resident, on January 2, 2006. At the time of Godenick's deposition in January 2009, Woolsey still lived in Godenick's house in Houston.
In her sole point of error, Godenick argues the trial court erred in denying her special appearance in which she asserted she was a South Carolina resident, did not conduct business in Texas, and was not subject to service of process in Texas. Whether a trial court has personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant is a question of law. Michiana Easy Livin' Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777, 790-91 (Tex. 2005); BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789, 794 (Tex. 2002); Am. Type Culture Collection, Inc. v. Coleman, 83 S.W.3d 801, 805-06 (Tex. 2002; Hoffmann v. Dandurand, 180 S.W.3d 340, 345 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.). Because the trial court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant is a question of law, an appellate court reviews the trial court's determination of a special appearance de novo. Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569, 574 (Tex. 2007); BMC Software, 83 S.W.3d at 794.
A valid and enforceable forum selection clause in a contract will support the denial of a special appearance entered by a party to the contract. CNOOC Southeast Asia v. Paladin Res., 222 S.W.3d 889, 894 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2007, pet. denied). Forum selection clauses are generally enforceable, and a party attempting to show that such a clause should not be enforced bears a heavy burden to prove the clause is invalid. In re Int'l Profit Assocs., 286 S.W.3d 921, 923 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). A trial court must presume that a mandatory forum-selection clause is valid and enforceable. See Id.; In re Boehme, 256 S.W.3d 878 (Tex.App.-Houston 2008, orig. proceeding). A trial court abuses its discretion if it refuses to enforce a forum-selection clause unless the party opposing enforcement clearly shows that: (1) the clause is invalid for reasons of fraud or overreaching; (2) enforcement would be unreasonable or unjust; (3) enforcement would contravene a strong public policy of the forum where the suit was brought; or (4) the selected forum would be seriously inconvenient for trial. Int'l Profit Assocs., 286 S.W.3d at 923. We review the trial court's interpretation of a contract containing a forum selection clause de novo. CNOOC, 222 S.W.3d at 894.
Here, the special appearance evidence shows Godenick entered into a contract with Mannatech in 1999 and renewed the contract each year through 2007, a total of nine years. The contract and renewal contracts contained a provision making Dallas County, Texas, the venue "for the resolution of any claim, demand or cause of action between" the parties. The contract also provided that Godenick would not recruit Mannatech's associates for a period of one year following the termination of her employment. Mannatech's claims in the underlying suit arise from Godenick's alleged violations of this provision occurring within one year of the termination of her employment. Godenick does not argue the contract was invalid for reasons of fraud or that its enforcement would be unreasonable or contravene public policy. See id. Under these circumstances, the trial court properly enforced the forum-selection cause contained in the parties' contract and denied Godenick's plea to the jurisdiction. See id.; Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 574. We overrule Godenick's sole point of error.
We affirm the trial court's order denying Godenick's special appearance.