Jiangsu General Science Technology Co., Ltd v. Diana Sanchez and Stephanie Sanchez, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Juan Sanchez

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 29, 2025
• Docket: 01-23-00894-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued August 29, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00894-CV ——————————— JIANGSU GENERAL SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., Appellant V. DIANA SANCHEZ AND STEPHANIE SANCHEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF JUAN SANCHEZ, Appellees

On Appeal from the 11th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2019-81655

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jiangsu General Science Technology Co., Ltd. (Jiangsu) appeals the denial of

its special appearance in a wrongful death and survival action brought against it by

Diana Sanchez and Stephanie Sanchez, individually and on behalf of the Estate of

Juan Sanchez (the Sanchezes). In four issues, Jiangsu contends that the trial court erred in denying its special

appearance. We reverse the trial court’s order denying Jiangsu’s special appearance

and render judgment dismissing the Sanchezes’ claims against Jiangsu for lack of

jurisdiction.

Background

In their live pleadings, the Sanchezes alleged that “Juan Sanchez was driving

a truck/trailer from Birmingham, Alabama to Houston, Texas when he was involved

in a fatal accident in Meridian[,] Mississippi.” A defective tire failed, causing a

blowout. Juan lost control of the truck/trailer, which overturned and hit a tree. Juan

suffered fatal injuries from the collision.

The Sanchezes asserted claims for negligence and strict product liability

initially against other defendants, including Statewide Tires, Inc. (Statewide). After

Statewide identified Jiangsu as its tire supplier, the Sanchezes added Jiangsu to the

lawsuit alleging that “on information and belief,” Jiangsu manufactured the

defective tire that caused the collision. They brought products liability claims under

the wrongful death and survival statutes, asserting that Jiangsu was liable for the

negligent design and negligent manufacture of the defective tire.

To support personal jurisdiction over Jiangsu, the Sanchezes alleged that

Jiangsu intentionally put its products in the stream of commerce and directed

business activities throughout the United States, “including having its products sold

2 and used in Texas.” Jiangsu had a sales and marketing department in charge of

selling its tires in the United States, “market[ed] its tires at various tire exhibitions

in the United States,” and was “aware that its tires were being sold in Texas.” The

Sanchezes also alleged that Statewide was Jiangsu’s exclusive “sales agent” and a

part of Jiangsu’s sales network in the United States, and that in 2018, Jiangsu

“knowingly shipped” hundreds of its tires from China directly to Houston, Texas.

Jiangsu responded by filing a special appearance. The parties participated in

jurisdictional discovery, which included taking the deposition of Jiangsu’s

designated corporate representative, Ding Zhenhong. Jiangsu amended its special

appearance to include excerpts from Zhenhong’s deposition. It argued that the

Sanchezes failed to establish personal jurisdiction over Jiangsu because it was not a

Texas resident and did not have minimum contacts with Texas.

Jiangsu explained that it was “a corporation incorporated under the laws of

China” with its principal office in Wuxi, Jiangsu province. In an affidavit

accompanying the special appearance, Zhenhong attested that during the relevant

time period,

• Statewide was the sole distributor of Jiangsu’s tires in the United States; • Jiangsu relied exclusively on Statewide as its sole exclusive United States distributor; • Jiangsu has never distributed its tires in the United States;

3 • Jiangsu did not have any factories in Texas and did not manufacture tires or sell tires in the State of Texas; • Jiangsu did not have any corporate headquarters, offices, or officers, and did not maintain any corporate records in Texas; • Jiangsu did not own property in Texas; • Jiangsu did not design tires in Texas; • Jiangsu did not have any dealerships in Texas; • Jiangsu never maintained a bank account in Texas; • Jiangsu did not advertise to the Texas market or participate in promotional events directed to the Texas market; • Jiangsu did not have any sales representatives in the United States; and • Jiangsu did not have a marketing department in the United States.

According to Jiangsu, it relied on Statewide as its “exclusive distributor”

within the United States and “was not aware that Statewide was selling Jiangsu’s

products” in Texas. Jiangsu denied that Statewide was its “sales agent,” or that

Statewide was a part of Jiangsu’s sales network in the United States. Jiangsu noted

that it had a sales manager in China to manage its sales to Statewide. But Statewide

conducted its own marketing activities, and Jiangsu “did not know where, and had

no right to influence where” Statewide sold Jiangsu’s products.

Jiangsu acknowledged that it “shipped goods to various ports, including the

Port of Houston, as directed by Statewide.” But Jiangsu did not know where its tires

were sold after Statewide received the shipments. Statewide stopped distributing

Jiangsu tires in the United States in 2019. 4 The trial court denied Jiangsu’s special appearance and this appeal followed.

Special Appearance

A defendant may challenge a plaintiff’s allegations supporting personal

jurisdiction by filing a special appearance. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 120a. We review a

trial court’s ruling on a special appearance de novo. See Luciano v.

SprayFoamPolymers.com, LLC, 625 S.W.3d 1, 8 (Tex. 2021). A trial court must

often resolve fact questions before deciding whether it has personal jurisdiction over

a defendant. BMC Software Belg., N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789, 794 (Tex.

2002). When faced with that task, the trial court is the sole judge of the witnesses’

credibility and the weight to be given their testimony, and we defer to its resolution

of any such questions. Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC v. Griffin Partners III-520/2017

L.P., No. 01-21-00083-CV, 2023 WL 2247765, at *10 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st

Dist.] Feb. 28, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Predator Downhole Inc. v. Flotek

Indus., Inc., 504 S.W.3d 394, 402 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, no pet.)).

When, as here, the trial court has not issued findings of fact and conclusions of law,

we imply all fact findings necessary to support the judgment which are supported by

evidence. Old Republic Nat’l Tire Ins. Co. v. Bell, 549 S.W.3d 550, 558 (Tex. 2018)

(citing BMC Software, 83 S.W.3d at 795).

5 Personal Jurisdiction

A court may assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if

the Texas long-arm statute and due process requirements of the Fourteenth

Amendment to the United States Constitution are satisfied. See U.S. CONST. amend.

XIV, § 1; TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 17.042; LG Chem. Am., Inc. v. Morgan,

670 S.W.3d 341, 346 (Tex. 2023). The Texas long-arm statute allows Texas courts

to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who is doing “business

in this state,” which the Legislature has defined to include “commit[ing] a tort in

whole or in part in this state.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 17.042(2); LG Chem.

Am., 670 S.W.3d at 346.

The Texas long-arm statute provides that a nonresident does business in this

state if the nonresident:

(1) contracts by mail or otherwise with a Texas resident and either party is to perform the contract in whole or in part in this state; (2) commits a tort in whole or in part in this state; or (3) recruits Texas residents, directly or through an intermediary located in this state, for employment inside or outside this state.

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 17.042.

A defendant’s contacts with a forum state can give rise to either specific or

general jurisdiction. Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 592 U.S. 351,

358 (2021). Specific jurisdiction exists when the claims involved in the litigation

relate to or arise from the nonresident defendant’s contacts with the forum state. Id.

6 at 359; see also M & F Worldwide Corp. v. Pepsi-Cola Metro. Bottling Co., 512

S.W.3d 878, 886 (Tex. 2017). General jurisdiction “involves a court’s ability to

exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant based on any claim, including

claims unrelated to the defendant’s contacts with the state.” M & F Worldwide Corp.,

512 S.W.3d at 885 (citing PHC-Minden, LP v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 235 S.W.3d

163, 168 (Tex. 2007)); see also Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 127 (2014)

(general jurisdiction requires that defendant’s contacts with forum state be so

continuous and systematic as to render defendant “essentially at home in the forum

[s]tate”).

The Sanchezes asserted only that Jiangsu was subject to specific jurisdiction.

“A Texas court may exercise specific personal jurisdiction when the defendant

purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum

state and the plaintiff’s claims arise out of or relate to those forum contacts.”

Hyundam Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Swacina, 716 S.W.3d 167, 173 (Tex. 2025) (cleaned

up). There must be a substantial connection between the defendant’s purposeful

contacts with the forum and the operative facts of the litigation. LG Chem. Am., 670

S.W.3d at 347; see Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569, 585

(Tex. 2007). “[M]ere injury to a forum resident is not a sufficient connection to the

forum.” TV Azteca v. Ruiz, 490 S.W.3d 29, 42 (Tex. 2016).

7 When considering whether the defendant purposefully availed itself of Texas,

we consider “only the defendant’s contacts with the forum . . ., not the unilateral

activity of another party or a third person.” Hyundam Indus. Co., 716 S.W.3d at 173

(quoting Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 575). Under the stream-of-commerce-plus

theory, on which the Sanchezes rely, “specific jurisdiction exists if the defendant

places goods into the stream of commerce ‘with the expectation that they will be

purchased by consumers in the forum state.’” Luciano, 625 S.W.3d at 13 (quoting

Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 577). But the “act of placing a product into the stream of

commerce does not establish purposes availment unless there is additional conduct

evincing an intent or purpose to serve the market in Texas.” BRP-Rotax GmbH &

Co. v. Shaik, 716 S.W.3d 98, 105 (Tex. 2025) (cleaned up, emphasis in original).

A defendant’s awareness of its product’s sale or distribution in Texas,

standing alone, does not create minimum contacts that support the exercise of

personal jurisdiction. Hyundam Indus. Co., 716 S.W.3d at 173; see also Luciano,

625 S.W.3d at 13 (explaining that defendant must target Texas; “it is not enough that

the defendant merely foresees [its] product ending up there”). Such additional

conduct may include, for example, “designing the product for the market in the

forum State, advertising in the forum State, establishing channels for providing

regular advice to customers in the forum State, or marketing the product through a

distributor who has agreed to serve as the sales agent in the forum State.” Asahi

8 Metal Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Super. Court of Cal., 480 U.S. 102, 112 (1987); see also

Shaik, 716 S.W.3d at 105 (describing examples of “additional conduct” to establish

purposeful availment); Luciano, 625 S.W.3d at 10 (plus-factor conduct may include

“advertising in the forum state, soliciting business through sales persons, or creating,

controlling, or employing the distribution system that brought the product into the

forum state.” (citations omitted)).

Thus, to show purposeful availment, proof of “random, fortuitous, or

attenuated” contacts will not suffice, nor will evidence of a third party’s unilateral

activities. Hyundam Indus. Co., 716 S.W.3d at 173; Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 575.

The proof must show that the defendant sought “some benefit, advantage[,] or profit

by availing itself of [Texas’s] jurisdiction.’” Hyundam Indus Co., 716 S.W.3d at 173

(quoting Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 575) (alterations in original).

The plaintiffs and the defendant bear shifting burdens of proof in a challenge

to personal jurisdiction. See Moncrief Oil Int’l v. OAO Gazprom, 414 S.W.3d 142,

149–50 (Tex. 2013); Kelly v. Gen. Interior Constr., 301 S.W.3d 653, 658–59 (Tex.

2010). The plaintiffs bear the initial burden of pleading allegations sufficient to bring

a nonresident defendant within the provisions of the Texas long-arm statute.

Moncrief Oil Int’l, 414 S.W.3d at 149. If the plaintiffs meet their initial burden, the

burden shifts to the nonresident defendant to negate the plaintiffs’ alleged bases for

jurisdiction. Id. The defendant can negate jurisdiction either by disproving the

9 plaintiffs’ allegations or by showing that the evidence is legally insufficient to

establish jurisdiction, taking the plaintiffs’ allegations as true.1 Kelly, 301 S.W.3d at

659.

No Evidence of Purposeful Availment

Jiangsu asserts that there is insufficient evidence to support specific personal

jurisdiction. It maintains that the evidence shows only that it shipped its products to

the United States at the direction of Statewide which, standing alone, does not

support specific jurisdiction. The Sanchezes noted corporate representative

Zhenhong’s use of the term “agent” in his deposition testimony to describe

Statewide’s relationship with Jiangsu.2 But Zhenhong corrected his deposition

testimony in an errata sheet to eliminate his use of the term “agent,” and his

description of how Jiangsu interacted Statewide does not support the conclusion that

a principal-agent relationship existed between Jiangsu and Statewide. See, e.g.,

1 Jiangsu argues that the Sanchezes failed to plead that Jiangsu committed a tort in whole or in part in Texas, and thus they failed to meet their initial burden triggering Jiangsu’s burden to negate their jurisdictional allegations. We need not resolve this issue because even if the Sanchezes satisfied their initial burden to plead sufficient jurisdictional facts, we conclude the trial court lacked specific jurisdiction over Jiangsu. 2 The Sanchezes also assert that Zhenhong’s declaration was inadmissible because he did not have personal knowledge of Jiangsu’s marketing and distribution practices. Because the Sanchezes did not move to strike the affidavit or secure an evidentiary ruling on this issue in the trial court, it is not preserved for our review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a). Further, the record contains Zhenhong’s deposition, in which Zhenhong explains how he acquired knowledge regarding the company’s sales activities, and thus supports Jiangsu’s special appearance. See Hyundam Indus. Co. v. Swacina, 716 S.W.3d 167, 171–72 (Tex. 2025). 10 Painter v. Amerimex Drilling I, Ltd., 561 S.W.3d 125, 132 (Tex. 2018) (defining

characteristic of principal-agent relationship is principal’s right to control agent’s

actions undertaken to further principal’s objectives). For instance, the evidence

shows that Statewide alone decided where to sell the tires it bought from Jiangsu,

and Jiangsu had no interest in where the tires were sold. This arrangement is different

from a situation in which a defendant has marketed its products “through a

distributor who has agreed to serve as the sales agent in the forum State.” Asahi, 480

U.S. at 112.

The Sanchezes also relied on the evidence that Jiangsu, at Statewide’s

direction, shipped its tires to the port of Houston. The details of the sales

arrangement, though, do not show that Jiangsu had any intent or purpose to serve the

Texas market. As instructed by Statewide, Jiangsu shipped the tires to ports in

California and the port of Houston “FOB Shanghai,” which meant that title for the

tires transferred from Jiangsu to Statewide in China, not Texas. See Hedaya Home

Fashions v. Garden Ridge, L.P., No. 01-12-00911-CV, 2013 WL 1284088, at *5

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 28, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding no

purposeful availment by New York seller where title to goods passed to buyer in

New Jersey, not in Texas where the goods ultimately arrived); see also CMMC v.

Salinas, 929 S.W.2d 435, 436, 439 (Tex. 1996) (no effort to market in Texas or

otherwise purposefully avail itself of Texas market by French winepress

11 manufacturer where independent distributor ordered winepress for Texas buyer and

instructed French manufacturer to arrange for winepress to be shipped FOB to port

of Houston). Thus, the shipments do not support a finding that Jiangsu intentionally

sought to conduct activities in Texas. See Hedaya Home Fashions, 2013 WL

1284088, at *5 (explaining that when nonresident defendant structures its

transactions to avoid benefits and protections of forum’s laws, such as by ensuring

that title passes outside forum, legal fiction of consent to personal jurisdiction does

not apply) (citing Am. Type Culture Collection, Inc. v. Coleman, 83 S.W.3d 801, 808

(Tex. 2002)).

The jurisdictional facts here show that Statewide was solely responsible for

any distribution or marketing of Jiangsu’s tires in Texas. Jiangsu’s mere knowledge

that its tires were being sold in Texas is not enough to show that Jiangsu purposefully

availed itself of the privilege of doing business in Texas as required to support

personal jurisdiction. See BRP-Rotax, 716 S.W.3d at 105. For these reasons, we hold

that the trial court erred in denying Jiangsu’s special appearance.

We sustain Jiangsu’s second and third issues.3

3 We need not reach Jiangsu’s remaining issues. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1.

12 Conclusion

We reverse the trial court’s order denying Jiangsu’s special appearance and

render judgment dismissing the Sanchezes’ claims against Jiangsu for lack of

Clint Morgan Justice

Panel consists of Justices Rivas-Molloy, Guiney, and Morgan