In United States Eventing Association, Inc. v. Pegasus Eventing, LLC, Ellen Doughty-Hume, et. al. (No. 05-23-01287-CV; August 5, 2024), Plaintiff, a horse coach for an eventing company, sued USEA, alleging negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract. She also sought a declaratory judgment that USEA breached its contract to wrongfully revoke her coaching license following an investigation involving the death of a horse under Plaintiff’s tutelage. USEA, whose national office is located in Virginia, filed a special appearance asserting lack of personal jurisdiction, which the trial court denied. This interlocutory appeal followed.
In an opinion by Justice Carlyle, the Dallas Court of Appeals reversed and rendered. Texas’ long-arm statute grants courts personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants (like USEA) that “do business in Texas” by (1) “contract[ing] with … Texas resident[s]”, (2) “commit[ting] a tort in whole or in part in [Texas]”, and (3) recruits Texas residents, directly or indirectly, for employment (TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 17.042). To invoke jurisdiction under the long-arm statute, plaintiffs must, in their petition, allege specific acts, like those listed above, not simply a list of causes of action. Plaintiff claimed USEA violated its policies and fiduciary duty to her by negligently or fraudulently investigating her on third party complaints of eventing-related misconduct. USEA’s third-party investigator filed an affidavit denying “misrepresenting” the allegations and establishing that neither Plaintiff’s alleged misconduct nor the investigation occurred in Texas. Additionally, USEA CEO’s affidavit showed the company did not “do business in Texas.” USEA’s only Texas-based conduct, the court found, consisted of soliciting memberships, sanctioning and conducting events, receiving entry fees for Texas events, and registering with Secretary of State. These activities were general and unrelated to Plaintiff’s allegations. Furthermore, “[t]o the extent the appellees pled and the court relied on others’ unilateral conduct—including Doughty-Hume’s, the other defendants, and Rockwall Animal Control—to support jurisdiction over the Association, it erred,” since only the defendant’s forum-related conduct is relevant to personal jurisdiction.
TCJL Research Intern Shaan Rao Singh provided research and writing for this article.
