Fred Stumpf and Christy Denison successfully appealed a trial court decision holding that the Firm’s Nevada client was subject to jurisdiction in Texas in a suit involving employment and ownership issues in a Lexus dealership in Las Vegas.

The plaintiff was the parent company of the dealership and had filed suit in Texas claiming that the Firm’s client, though a resident of Nevada, was subject to suit in Texas because he had come to Texas to be interviewed for the position of general manager of the dealership, had returned on one other occasion for a training session,  reported by telephone and other means of communications to the owners of the parent company in Texas, and was claiming a right to own 10% of the dealership under his employment arrangement.

In reversing the trial court’s order, the 1st Court of Appeals stated that the record established that the Firm’s client “did not ‘purposely avail [himself] of the privilege of conducting activities within (Texas), thus invoking the benefit of its laws” and that the Firm’s client lacked “sufficient minimum contacts to support an assertion of specific jurisdiction in Texas.” 

The Court went on to render judgment in favor of the Firm’s client.  The plaintiffs were represented by Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP