Solicitation = Jurisdiction

The denial of a special appearance by a Florida-based real estate broker was affirmed after the Fifth Court noted these facts:

• “Though appellants’ solicitations involved the sale of Florida property, they knew from Mr. Bernstein’s mailing address that they were soliciting a Texas resident who was thus subject to Texas laws, including property-ownership laws. Appellants had a ‘say in the matter’ as to whether to reach out to solicit business in Texas.”
• “Here, unlike in [Bryan v. Gordon, 384 S.W.3d 908 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.)], Mr. Bernstein made no initial request for contact. Instead, appellants ‘initially targeted’ Mr. Bernstein, whom they knew to be a Texas resident, as a client.”
• “Though appellants contend ‘everything’ for which they are being sued ‘occurred in Florida,’ the record shows the Bernsteins’ claims are directly based on alleged misrepresentations appellants made during the solicitations and the resulting contract allegedly induced by those misrepresentations. Thus, appellants’ contacts are substantially connected to the litigation’s operative facts.”

Ringham v. Bernstein, No. 05-21-00526-CV (Jan. 5, 2022) (mem. op.).