Michiana Easy Livin' Country, Inc. v. Holten
2005 Tex. LEXIS 420, 168 S.W.3d 777, 48 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 789 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A non-resident defendant's single, isolated sale to a forum resident, initiated by the buyer, does not constitute the purposeful availment required by the Due Process Clause to establish specific personal jurisdiction, even if the seller knows the product will be used in the forum and allegedly commits a tort during the transaction.
Facts:
- James Holten, a Texas resident, sought to purchase a Coachmen recreational vehicle (RV) for a lower price than available from Texas dealers.
- After being referred by the Coachmen factory, Holten initiated a phone call from Texas to Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc., a factory outlet store located and operating exclusively in Indiana.
- During the transaction conducted over the phone, Michiana allegedly made misrepresentations to Holten about the RV's construction and features.
- Holten sent payment for the $64,000 RV from Texas to Michiana in Indiana.
- At Holten's sole request and expense, Michiana arranged for the RV to be shipped from Indiana to Holten in Texas.
- Michiana has no employees, property, or advertising in Texas and is not authorized to do business there.
- The sales contract signed by the parties contained a forum-selection clause stipulating that any legal dispute would be resolved in the Indiana county where Michiana's principal offices are located.
Procedural Posture:
- James Holten filed suit against Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. and others in a Texas state trial court.
- Michiana filed a special appearance to contest the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over it.
- The trial court denied Michiana's special appearance.
- Michiana, as appellant, filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial to the Texas court of appeals.
- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's order, holding that the Texas court had personal jurisdiction over Michiana.
- Michiana then petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas for review, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a Texas court's exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over a non-resident seller violate the Due Process Clause when the seller's only contacts with Texas consist of responding to an unsolicited phone call from a Texas resident, allegedly making misrepresentations during that call, and arranging for shipment to Texas at the buyer's request and expense?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brister
Yes, the exercise of jurisdiction violates the Due Process Clause. A court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant based on the unilateral activity of a plaintiff; the defendant must have purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state. Michiana's contacts with Texas were not the result of its own purposeful acts, but rather the fortuitous result of Holten's unilateral decision to call from, and request delivery to, Texas. A single contract with a forum resident is not automatically sufficient, and merely knowing a product will be shipped to a state at the buyer's request does not establish minimum contacts. The court rejected the theory that 'directing a tort' at a Texas resident, by itself, is sufficient for jurisdiction, as the focus must remain on the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum, not merely the location of the resulting harm.
Dissenting - Justice Medina
No, the exercise of jurisdiction does not violate the Due Process Clause. When a non-resident defendant purposefully directs tortious conduct at a forum resident with full knowledge that the injury will occur there, jurisdiction is appropriate. Michiana did more than just receive a phone call; it made the purposeful decision to deal with a Texas resident, allegedly made misrepresentations knowing they would be relied upon in Texas, and shipped its product to Texas. This conduct was purposefully directed at the forum, and even a single contact is sufficient for specific jurisdiction when the cause of action arises from that contact. The majority's holding improperly shields an out-of-state defendant who intentionally defrauds a Texas resident from having to answer for its conduct in a Texas court.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the stringent requirements of the 'purposeful availment' standard for specific personal jurisdiction in Texas, particularly for e-commerce and telephone sales. It clarifies that a defendant's contacts must be active and directed toward the forum, not passive responses to a consumer's outreach. The decision significantly limits the 'effects test' or 'directed-a-tort' theory, holding that the mere allegation of a tort aimed at a resident is insufficient without independent, purposeful contacts by the defendant. This precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to establish jurisdiction over out-of-state sellers in isolated, consumer-initiated transactions, potentially requiring plaintiffs to litigate in the seller's home state.
