No jurisdiction, no judgment.

The winner of a substantial judgment in the Mexican courts, sought to domesticate the judgment in Texas under the Uniform Foreign Currency Money Judgments Recognition Act (referred to by the less-than-catchy acronym of  “UFCMJRA.”)

Dynaresource conceded that “the purported judgment debtor has no ties, no presence, and no assets in the forum state.”

The Fifth Court held that as a matter of due process, UFCMJRA could not be applied in such circumstances. The Court also concluded that a special appearance was the proper procedural vehicle to raise this challenge, and distinguished two earlier Houston cases on the general topic as involving a different jurisdictional issue and and a repealed statute. Dynaresource de Mexico S.A. de C.V. v. Goldgroup Resources, Inc., No. 05-21-00362-CV (May 2, 2023).

The issue in this case is not directly related to Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. presently before the U.S. Supreme Court about the jurisdictional consequence of registering to do business in a state, but it involves a somewhat-similar interplay of a statute with traditional minimum-contacts principles.