HOUSTON — A Texas appeals court found that a case did not belong in Texas because the defendant did not have sufficient contacts in the state.
Justice Gordon Goodman authored the Feb. 13 opinion. Justices Evelyn Keyes and Julie Countiss concurred.
"We hold that Podesta’s Texas contacts do not support an exercise of personal jurisdiction in this case. Accordingly, we affirm," Goodman wrote.
Ajamie, which is a Texas-based company, hired Podesta, a Washington, D.C.-based lobbying firm to lobby the U.S. Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), but Ajamie was not happy with Podesta's performance for the final six months of their contract and refused to pay Podesta its final invoice, according to the opinion.
Podesta then sued Ajamie in D.C. Superior Court to recover the unpaid balance and Ajamie countersued Podesta in Texas state court, for which Podesta filed a special appearance that was granted. Ajamie then argued that the special appearance was granted in error.
Ajamie claimed that Podesta satisfied its minimum contact requirements by soliciting Ajamie for business, receiving monthly payments from Ajamie, regularly communicating with Ajamie's attorneys and entering into a contract with Ajamie.
"Assuming these contacts are sufficient to show Podesta purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in Texas, they are not substantially connected to the operative facts of the litigation, which concern what Podesta did (and did not do) in Washington, D.C., not Texas," Goodman wrote.
Goodman wrote that Podesta's "alleged actionable conduct" all occurred outside of Texas and, because of that, Podesta failed to establish the minimum contacts for Ajamie's claim for jurisdiction.
"The evidence shows that Podesta would have performed its contractual duties during the final six months of the Consulting Agreement in Washington, D.C.," Goodman wrote. "Because Podesta would have performed in Washington, D.C., that is where its alleged breach would have occurred."
Texas First District Court of Appeals Case number: 01-19-00503-CV