Voltaix, LLC v. Ajongwen
Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-12-00606-CV (May 30, 2013)
Justices Moseley (Opinion), Fillmore, and Myers
The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s interlocutory order granting a special appearance filed by one of several defendants in a trade secrets case. The plaintiff conceded the defendant was not subject to general jurisdiction in Texas but contended he was subject to specific jurisdiction because his liability arose from his sole alleged contact with the state—a 1 ½-day visit to a co-defendant’s facility. The court of appeals concluded the defendant’s site visit was not adequately connected to the operative facts of the case to establish jurisdiction.
Voltaix, a manufacturer of “germane gas” used in the semiconductor industry, sued two of its former employees for misappropriating trade secrets related to the manufacturing process. The two former employees had started their own competing company, Metaloid, with a manufacturing plant in Texas. Voltaix also sued Ajongwen, an investor and board member of Metaloid, and accused him of participating in the former employees’ misappropriation.
Ajongwen filed a special appearance, alleging he was a resident of New Jersey and not amenable to jurisdiction in Texas. Voltaix conceded Texas lacks general jurisdiction over Ajongwen but contended he was subject to specific jurisdiction because he assisted in the commission of a tort in Texas by receiving information about Voltaix’s trade secrets from the former employees and visiting Metaloid’s Texas plant to set up a water purification system used in the manufacturing process.
Ajongwen argued the water purification system he set up is a commercially available product that did not involve Voltaix’s alleged trade secrets. The trial court granted Ajongwen’s special appearance.
The court of appeals first noted that personal jurisdiction over a nonresident cannot be premised on contacts imputed from another person. Thus, Voltaix’s allegation that Ajongwen assisted the two former employees in their misappropriation of trade secrets in Texas did not establish jurisdiction over Ajongwen. The court focused instead on the relation between Ajongwen’s visit to the Texas plant and the facts relevant to his alleged liability.
The court observed that Ajongwen’s visit occurred long after the former employees allegedly disclosed trade secrets to him (when he was in New Jersey), after the water purification system was purchased, and before Metaloid started production. The court also noted that much of the technical advice, financial assistance, and encouragement Ajongwen gave the former employees occurred in New Jersey. The court concluded Ajongwen’s visit to Texas was not substantially connected to the operative facts in dispute, and therefore agreed with the trial court that Texas lacks specific personal jurisdiction over Ajongwen.
