Opinion
No. 05-02-01129-CV.
Opinion Issued January 29, 2003.
Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. CC-01-6881-E.
Affirmed.
Before Justices WHITTINGTON, RICHTER, and FRANCIS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Carolyn S. Coleman and Jessie J. Coleman, Individually and as Next Friends for Ebony Kennedy and Representatives of the Estate of Latresha O. Coleman appeal the trial court's order granting the special appearance and motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by Thomas Cecil and TEC Services, Inc. d/b/a Holloway Associates. In three issues, appellants contend the trial judge erred in granting appellees' special appearance because the nonresident appellees failed to negate all bases for personal jurisdiction. The facts of this case are known by the parties, and we do not recite them in detail. Because all issues are well settled, we issue this memorandum opinion. Tex.R.App.P. 47.4. We affirm the trial court's order.
The exercise of personal jurisdiction by a Texas court over a nonresident must be consistent with the guarantees of due process. Schlobohm v. Schapiro, 784 S.W.2d 355, 356 (Tex. 1990). Due process requires that defendants not be haled into a Texas court unless their activities should have led them to reasonably anticipate being answerable there. City of Riverview, Mich. v. Am. Factors, Inc., 77 S.W.3d 855, 858 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2002, no pet.) To meet this requirement of foreseeability, the nonresidents must have established "minimum contacts" with the state. Schlobohm, 784 S.W.2d at 357. To establish minimum contacts, nonresidents must "do something purposeful to avail [themselves] of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thus invoking the benefit and protection of its laws." Schlobohm, 784 S.W.2d at 357.
In this case, the trial judge made the following findings of fact:
6. This case arises out of an automobile accident that took place in Kentucky, and none of the actions taken by TEC or Cecil in investigating the accident were purposely directed or aimed at Texas. All of the work performed by TEC and Cecil took place in Kentucky.
7. At no time did TEC or Cecil do anything to affirmatively avail themselves of the benefits of conducting business in Texas or the protection of Texas' laws.
8. It was not foreseeable that TEC or Cecil could or would be sued in a Texas state court based upon statements made by Cecil during an initial telephone call he received from Mrs. Carolyn Coleman.
We have reviewed the entire record and conclude there is legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the trial judge's fact findings. See BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789, 794 (Tex. 2002). Applying the law to the established facts, we conclude the trial judge did not err in granting the special appearance. See City of Riverview, 77 S.W.3d at 858. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order granting appellees' special appearance.