Reported / Citable
Background
Thalia Martinez, her spouse, and their minor children sued ENGIE S.A. and several affiliated entities after a natural-gas leak explosion in Matamoros, Tamaulipas, Mexico allegedly injured Martinez. The plaintiffs asserted negligence and gross-negligence claims arising from the explosion.
The action began in Texas state court and was removed to federal court. After previously dismissing Felisa del Carmen Ros and ENGIE North America, Inc. for improper joinder, the court allowed tailored jurisdictional discovery concerning ENGIE S.A., ENGIE Mexico, S.A. de C.V., Tractebel GNP, S.A. de C.V., and Tamauligas, S.A. de C.V. Those remaining defendants then pursued dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie showing of either general or specific personal jurisdiction over ENGIE S.A. ENGIE S.A. was incorporated and headquartered in France and was not at home in Texas. Its Texas subsidiary’s contacts could not be imputed to it because the evidence showed that the entities maintained separate governance, corporate formalities, officers, accounting systems, and operations.
Specific jurisdiction also could not rest on ENGIE S.A.’s agreement to purchase natural gas from a Texas facility. The plaintiffs offered no evidence connecting that agreement to the explosion, and the pipeline associated with the agreement was still under construction when the incident occurred. Nor did the plaintiffs establish jurisdiction over the Mexican entities: they were incorporated and based in Mexico, lacked Texas operations or property, and the record did not support the asserted agency, alter-ego, or Houston-based decision-making theories.
The court therefore granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed all remaining claims and the case without prejudice. Because it lacked jurisdiction, the court did not decide the merits of the negligence allegations.
Key Takeaways
- A corporate affiliate’s Texas contacts are not imputed to another entity without clear evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of corporate separateness.
- Conclusory and speculative allegations that operational or safety decisions were made in Houston did not establish specific jurisdiction when the defendants’ declarations controverted those allegations.
- A Texas contract did not support specific jurisdiction absent evidence connecting that contract to the plaintiffs’ injuries in Mexico.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the evidence needed to establish personal jurisdiction over foreign corporations in a multinational corporate group. Common branding, organizational reporting structures, and affiliation with a Texas-based entity do not alone establish that a foreign parent or affiliate is at home in Texas or has purposefully directed suit-related conduct there.
It also underscores that jurisdictional discovery must produce facts tying the defendant’s own Texas contacts to the litigation. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, the ruling does not foreclose the plaintiffs from pursuing their claims in an appropriate forum.