OCEANOGRAFIA, S. A. DE C.V. v. MARIANA CALDERON HERNANDEZ, ET AL.--Appeal from 103rd District Court of Cameron County (Majority)

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 13th District Court of Appeals » 2011 » OCEANOGRAFIA, S. A. DE C.V. v. MARIANA CALDERON HERNANDEZ, ET AL.--Appeal from 103rd District Court of Cameron County (Majority)

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 13-10-00223-CV

Case Date: 12/08/2011

Plaintiff: OCEANOGRAFIA, S. A. DE C.V.

Defendant: MARIANA CALDERON HERNANDEZ, ET AL.--Appeal from 103rd District Court of Cameron County (Majority)

Preview:NUMBER 13-10-00223-CV

COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
OCEANOGRAFIA, S.A. DE C.V., v. MARIANA CALDERON HERNANDEZ, ET AL., Appellees. Appellant,

On appeal from the 103rd District Court of Cameron County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Benavides Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides

Oceanografia, S.A. de C.V. (appellant), appeals the trial court`s denial of its special appearance on the grounds that the trial court lacks general jurisdiction to hear a suit brought against it by Mariana Calderon Hernandez et al., (appellees) for claims of negligence at sea. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND

This personal injury and wrongful death suit arises from an incident aboard a vessel operated by appellant in the Gulf of Mexico that eventually caught fire and sank. Appellant is a Mexican company headquartered in Mexico City. Appellees are among

hundreds of Mexican-national passengers (with the exception of one U.S. citizen) that were aboard the ship, who traveled to work on offshore oil wells. One passenger

perished in the tragic ordeal. Following the rescue of surviving passengers, appellees filed a lawsuit in the 103rd District Court, Cameron County, Texas against appellant and other defendants, which alleged various claims of negligence. Appellees alleged in their petition that appellant was amenable to the court`s jurisdiction because it conducted substantial business in Texas, maintained a fleet in Texas, and operated jointly with a registered Texas business. appellant`s business dealings in Texas included: Appellees alleged that

millions of dollars worth of

transactions with Texas-based ship company Con-Dive; purchase and service contracts with various Texas-based financial and oil and gas companies; and business meetings and recruitment of personnel in Texas by appellant. Appellant was also involved in

prior lawsuits in federal and state courts in Texas, where jurisdiction did not appear to be at issue.

2

The other defendants did not contest the trial court`s jurisdiction over them. However, appellant filed a special appearance to object to the jurisdiction of the trial court on the grounds that appellant is not a resident of Texas and does not engage in business activities in the state. Appellant further argued that if the trial court assumed

jurisdiction, it would offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. After briefing and argument, the trial court denied appellant`s special appearance. This appeal followed. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN.

Download 13-10-00223-cv-0.pdf