The Dallas Court of Appeals has reversed a $34 million default judgment against a Taiwanese electronics manufacturer.
Polaris Electronic Co. Ltd. v. Raspberry 353 LLC (No. 05-23-00382-CV; August 29, 2025) a prior suit between Razberi Technologies, Inc., a Dallas-based electronics company, and DynaColor Inc., a Taiwanese electronics manufacturer, resulting in a $25,000,000 judgment in Razberi’s favor. Razberi assigned its rights under this judgment to Raspberry (what’s the deal with Razberi and Raspberry?), which tried to collect on the judgment. Raspberry filed suit against Polaris in a Dallas district court, alleging that DynaColor “was using Polaris” to avoid paying the judgment and asserting conspiracy, declaratory judgment, tortious interference with judgment, and fraudulent transfer. Raspberry sought injunctive relief to prevent the further disposition of assets. Polaris failed to respond to the lawsuit, and Raspberry moved for default judgment. The trial court entered a judgment awarding Raspberry $33,933,199.68 in actual damages, interest, and court costs. At the same time, Raspberry moved to transfer the case to a different Dallas district court, which entered a “conformed” copy of the final default judgment. At this point Polaris filed a special appearance, a motion for new trial, and special exceptions to Raspberry’s original petition and motion for default judgment. The trial court denied Polaris’s special appearance and its motion for new trial was denied by operation of law. Polaris appealed.
In an opinion by Justice Goldstein, the court of appeals reversed and rendered. Polaris argued that the trial court erred in denying its special appearance and making the implied finding that it had specific jurisdiction over Polaris. Polaris further argued that Raspberry pleaded insufficient facts to bring Polaris within reach of the Texas Long Arm Statute, labeling their claims as “generic” and “conclusory.” The court disagreed. Noting that the first step of the analysis is “minimal,” the generic nature of Raspberry’s allegations (that Polaris conducted business and committed torts in Texas) satisfied the minimum pleading requirement.
The court then turned to whether Polaris negated the basis for personal jurisdiction alleged by Raspberry. Polaris asserted that Raspberry’s jurisdictional evidence failed to establish that it had the requisite contacts with Texas to show purposeful availment. Even if the evidence established that it committed a tortious act, any such conduct occurred outside of the state of Texas. It was not enough that Plaintiff alleged that Polaris “directed the tort toward Texas.” The court found no evidence that any act of fraud or transfer of Texas-based assets occurred in Texas. Instead the alleged fraudulent transfer “was of good manufactured in Taiwan from one Taiwanese company to another FOB Taiwan in order to fulfill purchase orders as directed by a non-party, third-party.” Only after all that did any of the products even reach Texas. As to Plaintiff’s tortious interference with a judgment claim, the court agreed with Polaris that Texas law does not recognize that theory, and, consequently, it can’t be the basis for personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s conspiracy claim like fails because conspiracy isn’t an independent tort, and “the mere existence or allegation of a conspiracy directed at Texas is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction” (citations omitted). The same went for Plaintiff’s declaratory-judgment claim because the trial court had no jurisdiction to begin with.
Raspberry unsuccessfully attempted to make a “stream-of-commerce-plus” argument. This claim was premised on the FOB shipments that Polaris made to March’s El Paso facility at March’s behest. The Court found that Polaris structured its business affairs so that it neither profited from the forum state’s laws, nor subjected itself to its jurisdiction. Accordingly, the shipments “were not purposeful contacts with Texas, but rather ‘random, fortuitous, or attenuated.’” Observing that the court had recently held in K.R.U., Ltd. v. Rodriguez, No. 05-24-01121-CV, 2025 WL 1927565 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 11, 2025 (no pet. h.) (mem.op.) that the stream-of-commerce-plus test does not establish specific jurisdiction where FOB orders are concerned, the court rejected Raspberry’s claim. This stream-of-commerce-plus test instead requires a concerted effort to serve the Texas market, conduct absent in this case. Raspberry failed to offer sufficient evidence of “plus” factors to sway the court, which found that Polaris’s business structure insulated it from the forum’s jurisdiction as well as its benefits.
The court thus reversed the trial court’s order denying its special appearance, vacated the default judgment, and dismissed Raspberry’s claims.
TCJL Research Intern Satchel Williams researched and prepared the first draft of this article.
