CAPITAL TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION SERVICES, INC. AND RAJ N. SHAH, Appellants v. ARIAS & ARIAS CONSULTORES AND PEGASUS BROKERAGE HOUSE, INC., Appellees

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 5th District Court of Appeals » 2008 » CAPITAL TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION SERVICES, INC. AND RAJ N. SHAH, Appellants v. ARIAS & ARIAS CONSULTORES AND PEGASUS BROKERAGE HOUSE, INC., Appellees

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 05-07-00280-CV

Case Date: 11/10/2008

Plaintiff: CAPITAL TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION SERVICES, INC. AND RAJ N. SHAH, Appellants

Defendant: ARIAS & ARIAS CONSULTORES AND PEGASUS BROKERAGE HOUSE, INC., Appellees

Preview:CAPITAL TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION SERVICES, INC. AND RAJ N. SHAH, Appellants v. ARIAS & ARIAS CONSULTORES AND PEGASUS BROKERAGE HOUSE, INC., Appellees
AFFIRM; Opinion Filed November 10, 2008
In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas ............................ No. 05-07-00280-CV ............................ CAPITAL TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION SERVICES, INC. AND RAJ N. SHAH, Appellants
V. ARIAS & ARIAS CONSULTORES AND PEGASUS BROKERAGE HOUSE, INC., Appellees ............................................................. On Appeal from the 382nd Judicial District Court Rockwall County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1-05-430 ............................................................. OPINION Before the Court En Banc Opinion By Chief Justice Thomas
        Arias & Arias Consultores and Pegasus Brokerage House, Inc. sued Capital Technology Information Services, Inc., Raj N. Shah, and others who are not parties to this appeal for unjust enrichment, conversion, conspiracy, and other causes of action. After the trial court denied the special appearances filed by CTIS and Shah, they filed this interlocutory appeal.
        CTIS and Shah argue the trial court erred because: (1) Arias and Pegasus failed to plead specific jurisdictional facts; (2) CTIS and Shah met their burden to negate the jurisdictional facts pleaded; (3) Arias and Pegasus failed to offer sufficient evidence supporting their allegations of alter ego; (4) Arias and Pegasus failed to plead and prove that jurisdiction in Texas was consistent with fair play and substantial justice; (5) the evidence was legally insufficient to support any presumed findings that support specific or general jurisdiction over CTIS and Shah; and (6) the trial court abused its discretion when it sustained Arias and Pegasus's objections to CTIS and Shah's special appearance evidence. We conclude the trial court did not err when it denied Shah's and CTIS's special appearances. Background
        Capital Surini Group International, Inc., a Maryland corporation, is a service information technology and software development corporation with its principal place of business in Rockville, Maryland. CSGI-Maryland has no employees, and its business is conducted by CTIS. CSGI- Maryland, however, does not pay the salaries of CTIS's employees. CTIS is a Maryland corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of CSGI-Maryland, with its principal place of business in Rockville, Maryland. CTIS provides information technology products and services that help clinical trial sponsors improve the safety and efficacy of their clinical trials. CSGI-Maryland and CTIS have common officers and directors. Shah, a Virginia resident, is the chief executive officer and chairman of both CSGI-Maryland and CTIS. In 2000, Shah owned approximately 65% of the shares in CSGI- Maryland. CSGI-Maryland's financial statements are reported on a consolidated basis with its subsidiaries, including CTIS, and CSGI-Maryland files a consolidated federal income tax return. However, CTIS files a separate Maryland state income tax return. CSGI-Maryland and CTIS share the same office space, CTIS pays the rent for both entities, and the office space is leased from Shah.
        CSGI-Maryland planned to take itself

Download 05-07-00280-cv-5.pdf