On Appeal from the 193rd District Court Dallas County
The appellant hired the appellee, an architectural firm based in the county, to provide architectural services for the appellant's restaurants in Kansas. The parties' contract was oral, and the parties communicated by telephone and email. The appellee's employees performed the majority of their work in the county, and they traveled to Kansas to inspect the construction of the restaurants and to advise the appellant. The appellant paid the appellee by sending payments to the appellee's office in the county. The appellant failed to pay the amount billed by the appellee, the appellee brought suit in the county for breach of contract, fraud, theft of services, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, sworn account, and quantum meruit. The appellant filed a special appearance that the trial court denied. The appellate court found that in the instant case, the appellant, through its employees, never physically entered the state. Instead, its contacts with the appellee in the county were through telephone and email communications and the sending of payments to the appellee. None of those constituted a contact demonstrating purposeful availment. Thus, the court noted that the trial court erred by denying the appellant's special appearance. The court concluded the appellant lacked sufficient minimum contacts with Texas to support the trial court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over the appellant. The court reversed the trial court's order denying the appellant's special appearance, and rendered judgment dismissing the cause for want of jurisdiction.