Summary
affirming trial court's judgment granting Wells Fargo's special appearance
Summary of this case from L'Arte De La Mode, Inc. v. Neiman Marcus Grp.Opinion
No. 05-10-00742-CV
Opinion issued April 20, 2011.
On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 09-05138-L.
Before Justices MORRIS, RICHTER, and FRANCIS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an interlocutory appeal from the trial court's order sustaining a plea to the jurisdiction. In two issues, appellant L'Art de la Mode, Inc. contends the trial court erred in declining to exercise either general or specific jurisdiction over Wells Fargo Trade Capital Services, Inc. f/k/a Wells Fargo Century, Inc. For the reasons that follow, we conclude appellant has failed to show the trial court erred. The facts of this case are well known to the parties, and we do not recite them in detail. Because all issues are well settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. filed this suit against appellant asserting a claim for money had and received. Appellant then filed a third party petition against Wells Fargo alleging that Wells Fargo, not appellant, had received, held, and retained the benefit of the funds for which Neiman Marcus sought recovery. Wells Fargo filed a special appearance stating it did not have sufficient minimum contacts with the state of Texas to support jurisdiction and the assumption of jurisdiction would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. After conducting a hearing, and considering the evidence, the trial court signed an order sustaining Wells Fargo's plea. This appeal followed.
In two issues, appellant contends the trial court erred in sustaining the plea to the jurisdiction because Wells Fargo had sufficient contacts with the state of Texas to give rise to either general or specific jurisdiction. The due process clause of the United States Constitution permits a state to exert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if (1) the defendant has some minimum, purposeful contacts with the forum state and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. See Dawson-Austin v. Austin, 968 S.W.2d 319, 326 (Tex. 1998). For jurisdiction to lie, both prongs of the test must be met. See Guardian Royal Exch. Assurance, Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.C., 815 S.W.2d 223, 228 (Tex. 1991). Accordingly, even if the nonresident defendant has purposefully established minimum contacts, the exercise of jurisdiction may not be fair and reasonable under the facts presented. Id.
In this case, appellant has not challenged the second prong of the due process test. Appellant makes no argument that Wells Fargo failed to show the exercise of jurisdiction would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Appellant argues only that Wells Fargo had sufficient contacts with the State. Because appellant has not challenged one of the bases for upholding the trial court's ruling, we cannot conclude the court erred in granting the special appearance. We affirm the trial court's order sustaining the plea to the jurisdiction.