The appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of the seller's special appearance, finding that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over the nonresident seller. The record showed that the Texas buyer initiated contact with the Florida-based seller and received the vehicle in Florida. There was no evidence that the seller made misrepresentations to the buyer in Texas. While the seller had sold 43 vehicles to Texas residents over three years, there was no indication that the seller targeted Texas customers or maintained any physical presence in Texas. Thus, the seller's contacts with Texas were insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.

1. Se ch - 92 Results - uniform commercial code and sliding scale
and Florida and Texas ... Page 1 of 8
Cusl-r:rn ID: - -r lSv,iiich flient lPrei-erences lHelp
llii,iesuppr:rt I
Search Get a Document Shepard'* More I"iist*ry Alents
FOCUS'* Terms Search W'thin Original Results (1 - 92) - ffi
Advanced... Vie,*-l'L:tcria!
Source: 8*ega[ > Area of kaw - Ey Topic > ecrutracts > F*nd
eases > State Cases, Combined Courts - Selected
Contract Law ldaterial i
Terms: uniform commercial code and sliding scale and Florida
and Texas and astomobile and minimum
contacts (Sug;gest ierms for My, S*arch ! Feedbaci< or Your
Search)
fselect for FOCUS" or Delivery
274 S.W.3d 172, *; 20OB Tex. App. LEXIS 7236, **
-t Vier+ AvaiiaL:!e Briefs anci rJthcr Docun-rents Reiatetl tr:
lhis Case
CHOICE AUTO BROKERS, INC.. Appellant v. CARL
DAWSON. Appellees
NO. 01-07-01035-CV
couRT oF APPEALS OF TEXAS, FIRST DISTRICT,

2. HOUSTON
274 S.W.3d 172;2OAB Tex. App. LEXIS 7236
September 25, 2AA8, Opinion Issued
PRIOR HISTORY: Ix*1]
On Appeal from the 152nd District Court, Harris County, Texas.
Trial Court Cause No. 2006-62501. Trial
Judge: Hon. Kenneth P. Wise.
c&sffi st"tfr,{M&RY
PR.OCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellee buyer sued appellant
seller for damages, alleging that the seller had
not been truthful about the age and condition of a car he bought
from the seller on an Internet auction site.
The seller filed a special appearance, alleging that it did no
business in Texas and was, therefore. not
subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas. The 152nd District
Court, Harris County, Texas, denied the
seller's special appearance. The seller appealed.
OVERVIEW: On review, the seller contended the trial court
erred in denying its special appearance. The
appellate court agreed, finding that the record showed that the
buyer initiated the conversations with the
seller and received the vehicle in Florida. There was no
evidence that the seller made misrepresentations
to the buyer in Texas. In fact. the record showed that the car
initially malfunctioned while outside of
Texas as well. Nothing in the record suggested that the seller's
potential liability arose from or was related
to an activity conducted within the forum. Therefore, specific
jurisdiction did not exist. As to general
jurisdiction. the record showed that the seller sold 43 vehicles

3. to Texas purchasers, but there was no
indication that the seller targeted Texas customers in any way.
Nothing in the record showed that the
seller maintained a physical presence in Texas, performed any
business activities in Texas, or otherwise
structured its business affairs to benefit from the Texas laws.
Thus, the seller's activities did not establish
a pattern of continuing and systematic activity sufficient to
support the exercise of personal jurisdiction in
Texas.
OUTCOME: The trial courl's order denying the seller's special
appearance was reversed and judgment was
http:llwww.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc:&pushme:1&tmpFBS
el:all&totaldocs:&ta... 8129DAD
Set^ ;h - 92 Results - uniform commercial code and sliding
scale and Florida and Texas ... Page 2 of 8
rendered dismissing the case against the seller for lack of
personat jurisdiction.
CORE TERi{S: website, personaljurisdiction, customer,
nonresident, internet, resident, bid, special
appearance, auction, drive, minimum contacts, advertising,
long-armn email, visitors, forum state, general
jurisdiction. purposeful, systematic. seller, confer, common
knowledge, judicial notice, highest bidder,
factual disputes, exercise of jurisdiction, sufficient to support,
purposefully avails, privilege of conducting
activities, total sales
LEHfiSzuHXI$G ruf;ADri{ST'E$ - t{ide

4. Civil Procedure ) Jurisdiction > Personal lur-isdiciion &. ifi
Rern Actions > In personam Actio*s > General Overview f;,,
Civrl Proceslu;re > Appreals > Standarcls si R.eirieruv > De
Novo F.eview d-*,
$$tr..t 6"fhs existence of personal jurisdiction is a question of
law reviewed de novo by the appellate court.
However, this question must sometimes be preceded by
resolving underlying factual disputes.
When the trial court does not issue fact findings, the appellate
court presumes that the trial court
resolved all factual disputes in favor of its ruling. Mcre Lit<e
This t-ieadnore
t-livil Pruceclure ) -lur-isdiction > persofia! ,lurisdictlcn & in
P.erri Aet!ons > Constitutionnl l-imits q.,
Civil Prqcedure > lurisdietion > Personai luriscjiction & in
Rern,qctions > In Pei'sonaili Aciions > t-or'rg-Arm lur-
isdictiorr t,,
rc#;eJsx3s courts nray assert personaljurisdiction over a
nonresident defendant only if the Texas
long-arm statute authorizes jurisdiction and the exercise of
jurisdiction is consistent with federal
and state due process standards. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Cr:de
Ann. $E 17.041-.045 (2008). The
long-arm statute allows Texas courts to exercise jurisdiction
over a nonresident defendant that
"does business" in the state. Tex, Cir,. Prac" & Renr" C*de
n"ln, 5 17.CI42 (2008). The Texas
Supreme Court has held that $ 17.il4.2's broad language extends
Texas courts'personal
jurisdiction as far as the federal constitutional requirements of
due process will

5. perrnit. Mr:re Like IhiE Headnote I Shepardize; Restrict By i-
leadrrote
Civii Prr:ceclirre ) Juri;drction ) Persernal -lr-rrisclicticn & trn
Rern Actions > In Personarn Acticns > Lorg-Arrn iurr-isclietion
s.,
Evielence > Pr+cedurel Consiclei-ations > Birrclens cf Fror:i')
Geirerai Overvierar t.
r*rd""glnitially, the plaintiff bears the burden of pleading
allegations sufficient to bring a nonresident
defendant within the terms of the Texas long-arm statute.
However, when a nonresident
defendant files a special appearance, that defendant assumes the
burden of negating all bases of
personal jurisdiction that the plaintiff has alleged. More Like
Thls l-ieadnote
Civil Flrnceciure > lurisdiction > pe!-sclnal lr:risdiclion & 1n
Rern Actions ) in Frerso*am Actions > Minirnurfi Contacts t..
C!r,il Proeeclure > llirrsrlictioi: ) Perscnal ,.lurisr.lietion & 1n
Rern Actions > In Fersonam,Actions > Ftrrpo:-"'i Ava.imerrt t,
P{}vd*. Personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants is
constitutional when two conditions are met:
(1) the defendant has established minimum contacts with the
forum state and (2) the exercise
of jurisdiction comports with traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice. A nonresident
defendant's minimum contacts must derive from purposefui
availment: a nonresident defendant
must have "purposefully availed" itself of the privileges and
benefits of conductinE business in the
foreign jurisdiction to establish sufficient contacts with the

6. forum to confer personal jurisdiction.
An act or acts by which the defendant purposefully avails itself
of the privilege of conducting
activities in Texas and thus invokes the benefits and protections
of Texas law, constitutes
http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc:&pushme:1&tmpFBS
el:a11&totaldocs:&ta... 8l29l2An
Seu" :h - 92 Results - uniforn commercial code and sliding scale
and Florida and Texas ... Page 3 of 8
sufficient contact with Texas to confer personal jurisdiction.
liore Like This rieadnore IShepardirc: Reslrici By Headnr:te
Civil Prr;cerjur* ) ltrr!:diction > Per!6nal .ir"irisrjiction & in
R.enr Acfior.rs > ln Personarc Actions > purpr:sefui Ar,,aiinrent
t,
Fr'tr's+The court considers three elements of purposeful
availment. First, the court considers only the
defendant's own actions, not those of the plaintiff or any other
third party. The unilateral activity
of those who claim some relationship with a non-resident
defendant cannot satisfy the
requirement of contact with the forum state. The apptication of
that rule will vary with the quality
and nature of the defendant's activity, but it is essential in each
case that there be some act by
which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of
conducting activities within the
forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its
laws. More Like Tiris Headrrote I
Sltepartlite : F.estrict Ey ileaelnfite

7. Civil PrccedLrre > lurisdieiion ) P*rsorlai Jur.isdictiorr & In
Rem Actioris > Ll Fei'sonarn Aci;ons ) Purn*seful fiy6ilpparri-
4-
#rtc{t*9,In the context of the court's jurisdictional analysis, the
activities must be purposeful, not random,
isolated, or fortuitous. it is the quality rather than the quantity
of contacts that is determinative.
The defendant must seek some benefit. advantage, or profit by
virtue of its activities in the
proposed forurn state, because this element is based on the
notion of implied
consent. Mare Like l"his Fieidn'l[e: | 5!;ey:ardizer Restri(t Sy
Headnote
ti",ril Procedltre > lirri:;dirtion > Per5{lnai lurlsdiction & 1n
F,eni Aciinils > In Personarn Acticns } fiinimum Contacts ft.,
Clvrl Proceelure >..iLri-isrjiclion > Personal lurisdjctir:n & In
R.r+rn Actrons > In Persc'nanr Actions > 5ut:stantial C*ntacts
{,,
,'+ru;r+The court's jurisdictional analysis is divided into general
and specific personal jurisdiction. General
jurisdiction will attach when a defendant's contacts in a forum
are continuous and systematic
permitting the forum to exercise personal jurisdiction over the
defendant even if the cause of
action did not arise from or relate to activities conducted within
the forum state. To support
generaljurisdiction, the defendant's forum activities must have
been "substantial," which requires
stronger evidence of contacts than for specific personal
jurisdiction. More i-rke This ueadnote I
5 hep a rcii ze : Restric! By l-ie;:clrr:le

8. Civil Procedui'e >.lLrri:;dicli-nn > P*rlonal Jurisdiction & ifl
Rerfl Artions > In perscfifrrn Actiofls > l'4!riimum Contacts {.,
fc$v$+,Specific jurisdiction lies when the defendant's alleged
liability arises from or is related to an
activity conducted within the forum. For a nonresident
defendant's forum contacts to support an
exercise of specific jurisdiction, there must be a substantial
connection between those contacts
and the operative facts of the litigation. This reguirement
assesses the strength of the necessary
connection between the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.
Irlo;'e Ltke t"his Headnore
fon-rpuier &. Internel Lar,v ) ulvil Adtions ) .lurisdicilori :>
Lcng-Arrn lurisdiction 4i*
hlfl#$*Internet usage is divided into three categories, using a
sliding scale, for the purposes of
establishing personal jurisdiction. At one end of the scale are
websites clearly used for transacting
business over the Internet, such as entering into contracts and
knowing and repeated transmission
of files of information, which may be sufficient to establish
minimum contacts with a state. On
the other end of the spectrum are "passive" websites that are
used only for advertising over the
Internet and are not sufficient to establish minimum contacts
even though they are accessible to
residents of a particular state. in the middle are "interactive"
websites that allow the "exchange"
of information between a potential custorner and a host
computer. lurisdiction in cases involving
interactive websites is determined by the degree of interaction.
ilore LikeThis Heednoie I

9. Shepardrze: Restrici By H€adnote
#Available Briefs and Other Documents Related to this Case:
http:llwww.lexis.com
/researcVretrieve?cc:&pushme:1&tmpFBSel:all&totaldocs:&ta..
. Bl29l2AD
Search - 92 Results - uniform commercial code and sliding scale
and Florida and Texas ... Page 4 of 8
J-X Cciurr of' $,i:i-reais Brief{s)
e${JfSSffiL: For APPELLAIT: ilavrrJ C" nlolmes *, Leylnon
L. Sr:iornon *, Houston, TX.
For APPELLEE: Carl Dawson, Houston, TX.
.3L3ffiGE$: Panel consists of Chief Justice Ftadack s Erd
Justices ,uchia - and lliEley -.
OPINION BY: Sam Nuchia -
*$?lxqssfq
l*L747 In this accelerated, interlocutory appeal. appellant,
Choice Auto Brokers, Inc. ("CAB"), challenges
the trial court's order denying its special appearance.
We reverse and render.
Background
CAB is a Florida corporation that sells automobiles using both

10. its own website and the internet
aucticn siie, eB;*y. * I Ix175] Dawson is a Texas resident, who
purchased an automobile from CAB.
Dawson found the autornobile on CAB's website, which had a
hyperlink to eBay to enable visitors to bid on
vehicles through the online auction site. Because the website
required that bidders who lacked a certain
bidding history on eBay call before placing a bid, Dawson
called CAB. He later purchased the car through eBay
using the auction-ending function, "Buy It lriow." Dawson's
father took receipt of the car in Florida on
Dawson's behalf. Due to mechanical problems, Dawson's father
was unable to drive the car to Texas,
[*x2] and Dawson had lt shipped to Texas,
FffiSTruffTHS
1 "The usual eBay auction process is, after almost a decade in
existence, now a matter of common
knowledgeof whichtheCourttakesjudicial notice.Seef,oxv. Ut/esf
Palmfreach,3E3F"2dl"89, 194(sih
Cir.1g67) ('The most frequent application of the judicial notice
doctrine is common knowledge.') A seller
advertises an item on the eBay interface, using a template. The
seller establishes a rninimum initial bid
and a deadline for the item's auction to end. Buyers may then
bid for the item through the eBay interface,
which for each item posts the current bid and the time
remaining. At the expiration of the auction period,
the highest bidder wins the item. EBay puts the seller and
winninE buyer in contact by email to arrange
payment and shipping.".4rilo,: Ic?p85, .xrr. rr. weaver, ttJo civ"
3;il5-cv-1693-li, 2005 U.S, Dist. i-EXIS
2931":, 1il05 lll- 1i99706, al- *2 {irJ.D. Te>i, Nctv" 23,2$fi5}'
Dawson sued for damages under the DTPA, alleging that CAB

11. had not been truthful about the car's age and
condition. Dawson argued that jurisdiction was proper because:
(1) CAB had previously sold 43 vehicles to
Texas residents over a three-year period; (2) CAB transported
or arranged for the transportation of
[x*3] 19 of these to Texas; (3) CAB's website states in more
than one place that a bid on a vehicle is a
tegatty linOing contract. In addition, CAB's website links
directly to eBay, where customers can bid on the
vehicles advertised on CAB's website.
CAB filed a special appearance, alleging that it does no
business in Texas and was, therefore, not subject to
personal jurisdiction"in Texas. CAB stipulated that: (1) it
maintained a website at the time of the sale; (2)
visitors to its website could view pictuies and specific details of
vehicles it was cffering for sale; (3) via the
website, visitors could schedule a test drive of the vehicles; and
(4) via the website, visitors could request
additional information. CAB also provided printouts as
exemplars of how the website looked at the tirne of the
sale. In an affidavit attached to Defendant's Second Amended
Special Appearance, Jean-Luc Ferrigno, the
http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc:&pushme:1&tmpFBS
el:all&totaldocs:&ta... 812912012
Search - 92 Results - unifofin commercial code and sliding
scale and Florid a and Texas ... Page 5 of 8
president of CAB, testified that: (1) CAB is a Florida
corporation that does no business in the State of Texas;

12. (2) CAB has no offices, employees, or facilities in Texas. nor
does CAB own any property in Texas; (3) CAB
does not engage in advertising that specifically targets Texas
residents, as Ixx41 opposed to the residents
of any other state; (4) CAB's advertising consists of paying a
company that promoles vehicles for sale on
behalf of numerous clients through internet listings that do not
target the residents of any particular state; (5)
unless otherwise requested by a client, the place of delivery is
Florida; (6) CAB offers some of its products for
sale through eBay and provides a link to eBay from its web
page; (7) customers cannot purchase products
frym CAB through CAB's_website; (S) customers can call CAB
directly to negotiate a sale over the telephone;(9) the "Make an
Offer" ftinction on the CAB website sends an email to CABI
(10) in response to such an
email, CAB calls the customer to discuss a potential sale; (11)
CAB does not ship vehicles to Texas but will
arrange for transportation outside of Florida through a third
party; (12) a customer can request a test drive
through the website, but the test drive must occur in Florida;
and (13) CAB provides no warranties.
The trial court denied CAB's special appearance, and CAB
timely appealed.
Standard of Review
e{nx"E-615u existence of personaljurisdiction is a question of
law reviewed de novo by this Court. BMC Softtryare
Belg., N.V. v. Marchand, S3 5.W,3d 789 (Tex. 2002). [*x5]
However, this question must sornetimes
txL767 be preceded by resolving underlying factual disputes.
Id. at 794. When, as here. the trial court does
not issue fact findings, we presume that the trial court resolved

13. all factual disputes in favor of its ruling. 4m.
Type Culture Callectiano Inc. v. Coleman, S3 S.W.3d 801,806
(Tex. 2002).
Personal Jurisdiction
FrrJ26"1"ras courts may assert personal jurisdiction over a
nonresident defendant only if the Texas long-arm
statute authorizes jurisdiction and the exercise of jurisdiction is
consistent with federal and state due process
standards." fd. (citing Guardian Royal Exch. Assurancel Ltd. v.
English China Clays, P.L.C.,815 S.W.2d 223,
226 (Tex. 1991)); see TEX. CIV. PR.AC. & REM. CCIDE ANN.
5g 17.041 .045 (Vernon 20OB) (Texas long-arrn
statute). The long-arm statute allows Texas cou*s to exercise
jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant that
"does business" in the state. TEX. CIV. PIIAC. & REM. CCIDE
AlN. $ 17.A42 (Vernon 2008). The Texas
Supreme Court has held that "section L7.A42's broad language
extends Texas courts' personaljurisdiction as
far as the federal constitutional requirements of due process will
permit." 8!4C Saftware, S3 5.W.3d at 795.
trtrS$Initially, Ix*6] the ptaintiff bears the burden of pleading
allegations sufficient to bring a nonresident
defendant within the terms of the Texas long-arm statute. Am.
Type Culture Collectian, 83 S.W.3d at 807.
However, when a nonresident defendant fites a special
appearance, that defendant assumes the burden of
negating all bases of personaljurisdiction that the plaintiff has
alleged. Id.
#ru4EPersonal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants is
constitutional when two conditions are met: (1) the
defendant has established minimum contacts with the forum
state and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction

14. comports with traditional notions of fair play and
substantialjustice. Id. at 806 (citing Int'l Shoe Ca. v.
Washington, 325 U.5. 3i0, 316, 66 S" et. 1"54, l-58, 9Cl L. Ed.
95 (1945)). A nonresident defendant's
minimum contacts must derive from purposeful availment: a
nonresident defendant must have
"purposefully availed" itself of the privileges and benefits of
conducting business in the foreign jurisdiction to
establish sufficient contacts with the forum to confer personal
jurisdiction. Id. (citing Burger King Corp. v.
R.udzewicz,471 U.S. 462, 4V4-76, 105 5. Ct. 2!74,2183-84,85
L. Ed. 2d 528 (1985)); Xenas Yuen v. Fisher,
727 S.W.3d 193, 200 (TeN. App.--Hor-rstcn [lst Dist.] 2007, rro
pet.). lx*77 An act or acts "by which the
defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of
conducting activities" in Texas and "thus invok[es] the
benefits and protections" of Texas law, constitutes sufficient
contact with Texas to confer personal
jurisdiction. ftlichiana Easy Livin'Country, Inc. v. Hoiten, 168
5.W.3d 777,7*4 (Tex.2005) (quoting Hansan v'
D*nckla,357 U.5. 235,253,78 5. Ct. L278,1240, 2 L. Ed. 2d
12E3 (1958))'
ffNs:Fyy" considerthree elements of purposeful avaitment. See
Michiana Easy Livin'Country, 168 S,W.3d at
785; see also First Oil PLC v. ATP 0/ & Gas Corp", No. 01-07-
00703-CV, 264 5.W.3d V67,2AA8 Tex. App.
tEXiS 3859, 2008 WL 2186781", at * L2-3 (Tex. App.--Houston
[1st Dist.] May 22,2008, no pet.). First, we
http.llwww.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc:&pushme:1&tmpFBS
el:al1&totaldocs:&ta... 8/2912012
Search - 92 Results - unifonn commercial code and sliding scale

15. and Florida and Texas ... Page 6 of 8
consider only the defendant's own actions, not those of the
plaintiff or any other third party. Michiana Easy
Livin'aountry, 1"68 5.W,3cj at 785; First OilpLC 2008 Tex.
App. LEXiS 3859, 2008 WL 2186781', at x12; see
also tJ-Anchar Adver., !nc. v. Burt, 553 5^W,2d 76A,762-63
(Tex. 197V) (quoting l'lanson, 357 U.S. atZ53,
78 5, Ct. at l-240 (1958) ("The unilateral activity of those who
claim some relationship with a non-resident
defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the
forum State. The application txt777 of that
rule will vary with the 1x*91 quality and nature of the
defendant's activity, but it is essential in each case
that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully
avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities
within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and
protections of its laws.")).
Second. #{trsry15" activities must be purposeful, not random,
isolated, orfortuitous. Michiana Easy Livin'
Country, 168 5.V'/.3cJ at 785; First Oil PLC,2OO8 Tex. App.
LEXiS 3E59, 2008 WL 2185781, at +12. "It is the
qualityratherthanthequantityof contactsthatisdeterminative."
FirstOil PLC,2AAB Tex. App. LEXIS 3859,
2008 WL 2786781, at *12 (emphasis in original). Third, the
defendant must seek some benefit, advantage, or
profit by virtue of its activities in the proposed forum state,
because this element is based on the notion of
implied consent. Michiana Easy Livin'Country, 168 S.W.3d at
785; First Oi! PLC,2AAB Tex. App. LEXIS 3859,
2008 WL 278678L, at *12.
ffrurSgurjurisdictional analysisisfurtherdividedintogeneral
andspecificpersonaljurisdiction.CsR, l-td.v.
Link,925 S.W.2d 5-q1, 595 (Tex. 1995). Generaljurisdiction

16. will attach when "a defendant's contacts in a
forum are continuous and systematic permitting the forum to
exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant
even if the Ixxgl cause of action did not arise from or relate to
activities conducted within the forum state."
Id.la support generaljurisdiction, the defendant's forum
activities must have been *substantial," which
requires sironger evidence of contacts than for specific personal
jurisdiction . Preussag Aktiengesellschaft v.
Coleman, 15 S.W.3d 110, 114 (Tex. App"--Houston [Lst Dist.]
2000, pet. disrn'd w.o.j.)'
trruEFspecific jurisdiction lies when the defendant's alleged
liability arises from or is related to an activity
conducted within the forum. BMC Sofiware, 83 S,W.3d at 796.
"For a nonresident defendant's forum contacts
to support an exercise of specific jurisdiction, there must be a
substantial connection between those contacts
and the operative facts of the litigation." Moki Mac River
Expeditians v. Drugg,221 5.W,3d 569, 585 (Tex.
2007). Tl'ris requirement assesses "the strength of the necessary
connection between the defendant, the
forum, and the litigation." fd.
Internet Use & Personal lurisdiction
trtr$Tlnternet usage is divided into three categories, using a
sliding scale, for the purposes of establishing
personal jurisdictijn . Reiff v. Roy, 115 5,W"3rL 7AA,7A5
(Tex. App.--Dallas 2003, pet. denied). ' "At
[**10] tne end of the scate are websites clearly used
fortransacting business overthe Internet, such as
entering into contracts and knowing and repeated transmission
of files of information, which may be sufficient
to establish minimum contacts with a state." fd- "On the other

17. end of the spectrum are [x178I 'passive'
websites that are used only for advertising cver the Internet and
are not sufficient to establish minimum
contacts even though they are accessible to residents of a
particular state." Id. at 705-06. "In the middle are
'interactive, websitej that allow the 'exchange' of information
between a potential customer and a host
computer. Id. at 706. lurisdiction in cases involving interactive
websites is determined by the degree of
interaction. fd.
FOOTilIOTES
zThistestwasfirstcreatedinZippoManufaeturingCa.v.ZippoDotCo
m, Inc.952 F.5upp. Lll9,7L24
(W. n. Fa. 1"997), and it has been adopted in the Fifth Circuit,
Mink v. AAAA Dev. LLC|, 190 F.3d 333, 336
iStt, Cir. 1"99g), and applied by many Texas courts of appeals.
Se9 G1P, Iryc. v' Ghosh,251 S.W,3d 854,
gZO n. 2f (fex. App.-lAustin 2008, no pet.); Karstetterv. Voss,
184 S.W.3d 396,4A4 (Tex. App.--Dallas
2006, no pet.); exia Etec. Co., Ltd. v. Treja,166 5.W.3d 839,
858 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 2005, no
pet.); [**1U Tawnsend v. univ. Hasp.-']Unir. af Colo.,83 5.w.3d
913,97,2 (Tex. App.--Texarkana
ZAAZ., pet. denied); Experirnenta! Aircraft Ass'n, Int. v.
Doctor,76 5,W.3d 495,507 (Tex' App --Houston
[14th Dist.] ZAO2, no fi*t.]; Michelu. Rocket Eng'g Carp.,45
S.W.3d 658,677 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth
iOOt, no pet"); iurr*unn v. Stephens, 51 S.W.3d 329,338 (Tex'
App"--Tyier 2001, no pet'); Riviera
http:l/www.lexis.com
1esearch/retrieve?cc:&pushme:1&tmpFBSel:all&totaldocs:&ta-

18. .. 812912012
Scarch - 92 Results - uniforun commercial code and sliding
scale and Florida and Texas ... Page 7 of 8
cp*ratinq {)rsr{:" v. ilanson, 2B s,iv"3e1 *fiH, t}:11 (I"ex.
App.--Beaumcnr ?Ofin, pet. rieniecl}; Jrrues,,r. seecfi
lirr.raft c.*rp., $45 5.i/d.2{i -16';;,7'7)t {Tex. App"--$an Anl-
cnji: 1gs$, pet clisr"r:, ry.o.j.).
Discussion
CAB's website was more than a purely passive website. The
website provided advertising and some
interactivity, because customers were able to email CAB
through the website to schedule a test drive or
request additional information about the vehicle. But the
website did not allow a custorner to enter into a
contract or purchase a vehicle directly; rather, it routed the
customer to eBay, where CAB had no control over
who would be the highest bidder. Because the degree of
interactivity falls between the two extrernes, we look
beyond the internet activityto the degree of interaction between
the parties. See narsreft*q, 184 S.!V.;1d at
4{i5.
As Jxx12l to specific jurisdiction, the record shows that Dawson
initiated the conversations with CAB and
received the vehicle in Florida. There is no evidence that CAB
made misrepresentations to Dawson in Texas.
In fact, the record shows thatthe car initially malfunctioned
while outside of Texas as well. Nothing in the
record suggests that CAB's potential liability arises from or is
related to an activity conducted within the forum.

19. See i1I4{" l{t;fflt,stt, 8l 5 ,V lil it 7*6; see also Mryki f4;zt
/?ir",*r fxpetf iti*ns,2}1" 5"V1,r.3d at 585. Therefore, we
conclude that specific jurisdiction does not exist.
As to generaljurisdiction, the record shows that CAB sold 43
vehicles to Texas purchasers. but the record
does not quantify CAB's total sales. During the same time
period CAB shipped, or arranged for shipping,
nineteen of those vehicles to Texas. There is no indication in
the record that CAB targeted Texas customers
in any way. Nothing in the record shows that CAB maintained a
physical presence in Texas, performed any
business activities in Texas, or otherwise structures its business
affairs to benefit from the Texas laws.
The Texas Supreme Court has held that an 18-year history of
sales to Texas residents [**13] was
insufficient to confer general jurisdiction, when Texas sales
accounted for 3.5o/a of its total sales and title to
the goods purchased passed outside of Texas, *m. Typ* Cultur*
d.'cl/ccflon, 83 5"W.3d Sfi1", 8*7-0S (Tex.
;0S21. In American Type Culture Collection, the defendant also
purchased supplies from over 33 Texas
vendors over a five-year period and sent representatives to five
scientific conferences in Texas over a seven-
year period. ,l"ri. at ft**. But the defendant did not advertise in
Texas or maintain a physical presence in
Texas. id. at 81il. It pedormed its business services outside of
Texas and constructed its contracts to ensure
it did not benefit from Texas laws. Id. The supreme court
concluded that these factors, taken together, did
not establish a pattern of continuing and systematic activity
sufficient to support the exercise of personal
jurisdiction in Texas. fd. ai 8*$-L0.
Likewise, we hold that CAB's activities do not establish a

20. pattern of continuing and systematic activity
sufficient to supporl the exercise of personal jurisdiction in
Texas. We hold that the trial court erred in
denying CAB's special appearance.
Conclusion
We reverse the trial court's order denying CAB's Ix*14] special
appearance and render Ix179] judgment
dismissing the case against it for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The Cterk of this Court is directed to issue the
mandate immediately. See Tf ,Y." R.. APp. p. r8.6.
Sam Nuchia
Justice
Source: l*egafl > Ar"ea cf L;rw - ffiy Y*pie > f.ontrmets > FInd
eases > State Cases, Combined Courts -
Selected Contract Law Material i
Terms: uniform commercial code and sliding scale and Florida
and Texas and automobile and minimum
contacts (5uc1qesi Jerrcs t'*r [4y 5e:r"rh I Ftedhack on {our
Search)
View: Full
http:llv'rww.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc:&pushme:1&tmpFB
Sel:all&totaldocs:&ta... 8/2912012
Search - 92 Results - uniform colrunercial code and sliding
scale and Florida and Texas ... Page B of 8

21. Date/Tirne: Wednesday, August 29,?iAtZ - 4;5T PM EDT
x Signal Leqend:
I - Warning: $€gative treatrfient is indicated
ffi - Questioned: ralidity questioned by ci{ng rBfs
ffi - Cautisn; Passible negative treatment
+ - Positive treatment is indicated
& - Citing Refs. Witfi Anatysis Avaikble
U - Citation tnformation available
ln About LexisNexis lPrivacy Policy lTerms & Conditions
lContact Us
Copyright O ZS12 Lexis$lexis, a division of Reed Elseyier Inc.
AII rights reserved.
hup://www.lexis.corn/reseercl/retrieve?cc:&pushrne:1&lrnpFBS
el:all&totaldocs:&ta... 8129/2A12
1-Mercedez:
According to statistics from the International Foundation for
Gastrointestinal Disorders (IFFGD), irritable bowel syndrome
(IBS) is the most common GI disorder with an international
prevalence rate of approximately 10-15% (2016). In the United
States alone, there are 2.4 and 3.5 million of annual visits to the
physician reported (IFFGD, 2016). Between 35 to 40% of those
who report IBS are male and 60 to 65% are female. There is
high cost to society related with IBS of approximately $21
billion dollars, which represents direct medical care and indirect
loss related to work absences and poor productivity (IFFGD,
2016).
The goal of treatment for Jordan is to improve and
relief her symptoms in order to prevent worsening of symptoms.
According to IFFGD (2016), the first line of treatment

22. for IBS is to implement lifestyle changes in the patient that may
be associated with symptoms. Examples of these changes
include dietary modifications. It is important to avoid food that
is gas-forming and high in fermentable oligosaccharides,
disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols. Also, water-
soluble fiber (e.g. psyllium) has a high water-holding/gel-
forming capacity that is preserved throughout the large bowel,
and can act as a bulking agent to firm loose/liquid stools in
patients with diarrhea (Moayyedi et al., 2017). It is also
important to remind our patients that increased stress may result
on worsening of IBS symptoms.
Drug therapy recommended should gear towards the
patient’s predominant symptoms. For example, antidiarrheal
agents such as loperamide will act on opioid receptors and will
slow down peristalsis (Schmick and Hornecker, 2017).
Because of its availability over the counter, established effect
on diarrhea and relatively low cost, loperamide is frequently
used as a first-line therapy for IBS-D. Loperamide may also be
used prophylactically when a patient anticipates episodes of
diarrhea. Adverse effects of loperamide include abdominal
cramps, constipation, bloating and nausea (Moayyedi et al.,
2017).
Bile salt sequestrants, such as cholestyramine or colesevelam,
may be effective against diarrheal symptoms in some patients
with IBS. It is suggested that bile acid sequestrants should be
considered after other therapies targeting diarrhea have been
unsuccessful (Moayyedi et al., 2017).
Recent evidence and studies suggests a role of antibiotics in the
treatment of IBS. Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth has also
been connected with IBS in general, particularly those
exhibiting diarrhea. Rifaximin is an oral, minimally absorbed,
broad-spectrum antimicrobial agent that targets the GI tract.
Some studies have shown that two weeks of rifaximin treatment

23. provided adequate relief of global IBS symptoms and individual
symptoms of loose stools, abdominal pain, and bloating
(Moayyedi et al., 2017).
Antidepressants and antispasmodics are also use in IBS.
Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) are used but studies on its
used are limited. Because of it, and the potential adverse effects
of TCAs, dosages prescribed are lower than when used to treat
depression or anxiety (Moayyedi et al., 2017).
2- Rosquete:
Jordan is a 35-year-old woman who presents with intermittent
diarrhea with cramping that is relieved by defecation. The
diarrhea is not bloody or accompanied by nausea and vomiting.
Review of past medical history includes some childhood
“stomach issues”, HTN, and a recent cholecystectomy. She
works in the environmental department of a large hotel. She
denies alcohol and cigarette.
Diagnosis: Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS)
Discuss the epidemiology of IBS?
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is the most common
functional gastrointestinal (GI) disorder with worldwide
prevalence rates ranging generally in the area of 10–15%.
Functional disorders are conditions where there is an absence of
structural or biochemical abnormalities on common diagnostic
tests, which could explain symptoms. Among patients about
40% of people have mild IBS, 35% moderate IBS, and 25%
severe IBS. Many people don't recognize IBS symptoms, and it
is one of the most common disorders seen by physicians. IBS is
the most common disorder diagnosed by gastroenterologists and
accounts for up to 12% of total visits to primary care providers.

24. What is your treatment goals for this patient?
The goal of treatment isn't just to ease bowel problems. It
should also soothe the stomachaches, pain, and bloating that
often come with IBC. The goals are symptom relief and
improved quality of life. Also exercise, antibiotics,
antispasmodics, peppermint oil, and probiotics appear to
improve symptoms. Over-the-counter laxatives and
antidiarrheals may improve stool frequency but not pain.
Discuss First line and second line drug therapy for IBS. Please
include pharmacotherapeutic information.
Modification of dietary habits should also be a first-line
consideration. Avoidance of foods that are gas-producing and
high in fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides,
monosaccharides, and polyols and that have a history of
aggravating symptoms may provide benefit. The initial
treatment approach for IBS should involve nonpharmacologic
management and then focus on drug therapy for the individual
patient’s predominant symptoms according to the limited
evidence-based medicine supporting specific agents in the
treatment of IBS symptomatology. The monitoring, education,
and support of patients that pharmacists provide renders their
role vital in IBS management. Although all patients with IBS
have symptoms of abdominal pain and disordered defecation,
treatment needs to be individualized and should focus on the
predominant symptom. Abdominal pain, bloating, constipation
and diarrhea are the four main symptoms that can be addressed
using a combination of dietary interventions and medications.
Treatment options include probiotics, antibiotics, tricyclic
antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and
agents that modulate chloride channels and serotonin.
Smooth muscle relaxants: These are best for relieving or
preventing intestinal cramping.

25. Antidiarrheal medications: Medications for those with diarrhea
slow intestinal transit and reduce the frequency of bowel
movements while improving the consistency of the stool.
Laxatives: For patients who have constipation as the
predominant symptom.
Antibiotics: To attempt to alter the composition of the gut flora
that might be responsible for the fermentation of poorly
digested carbohydrates.
Low-dose antidepressants: If pain and diarrhea are your
predominant symptoms, you may find relief with these
medications that work on the gut’s nervous system to make it
less reactive to foods you eat or to emotional stress.
References
Chaudhary NA, Truelove SC. The irritable colon syndrome. A
study of the clinical features, predisposing causes, and
prognosis in 130 cases. Q J Med. 1962; 31:307–322.
Kruse FH. Functional disorders of the colon: the spastic colon,
the irritable colon, and mucous colitis. Cal West Med.
1933;39(2):97–103.
Longstreth GF, Thompson WG, Chey WD, Houghton LA,
Mearin F, Spiller RC. Functional bowel disorders.
Gastroenterology. 2006;130(5):1480–1491.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-20064
Summary Calendar
United States Court of APPeals

26. Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 18,2018
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
E. DRAKE,
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
MURPHY, AUSTIN, ADAMS, SCHOENFELD; NIELLO
PERFORMANCE
MOTORS, INCORPORATED; RICHARD SEEBORG;
GARLAND E.
BURRELL, JR.; EDWARD J. GARCIA; I,AWRENCE K.
KARLTON; JOHN
A. MENDEZ; KIMBERLY J. MUELLER; TROY L. NUNLEY;
WILIAM B.
SHUBB; LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL; EDMUND F. BRENNAN;
ALLISON
CLAIRE; CRAIG M. KELLISON; MICHAEL J. SENG;
JENNIFER L.
THURSTON,
Defendants - ApPellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas

27. USDC No. 4:17-CV-1826
Before SMITH, WIENER, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
* Pursuant to 5TH Cm. R. 47.5, t.ne court has determined that
this opinion should
not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances
set forth in 5TH
Cm. R. 47.5.4.
No. 18-20064
Plaintiff-Appellant Eric Drake, proceeding pro se, sued
Defendant-
Appellees (1) Murphy, Austin, Adams, Schoenfeld ("Murphy
Austin"), a
California law firm, and (2) NieIIo Performance Motors, Inc.
("Niello"), a
California automobile dealership, asserting numerous claims,
including fraud
and violations of the federal odometer laws. This is the fourth
suit Drake has

28. filed against Niello relating to the 20L4 sale of a 2003
Mercedes Benz Model C-
32.1 Murphy Austin represented Defendant-Appellee Niello in
the previous
lawsuits.
In 2013, Drake saw Niello's Cars.com advertisement for a 2003
Mercedes
Benz Model C-32. He contacted Niello about purchasing the
car, but they were
not able to reach an agreement about the terms and conditions
of the sale.
When negotiations faltered, Drake sued Niello in the Southern
District of
Texas, McAIIen Division. The parties settled, and Drake
voluntarily dismissed
that case.
Drake traveled to Sacramento, California to sign the settlement
agreement. One of the terms of that agreement was that Niello
would sell the
car to Drake. Under the agreement's terms, Niello delivered the
car to
Shipping Experts, a California shipping company and a
nonparty to this suit,
to ship the car from California to Drake in Texas.

29. Drake then filed three more lawsuits based on the sale and
transportation of the car: one in the Northern District of Texas;
another in the
Northern District of California; and the third, the instant case,
in the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division. Drake's primary claim is
that the mileage
on the car's odometer differed from the mileage set out in the
settlement
1 This court has recently acknowiedged that "Drake has been
declared a vexatious
litigant in Texas state courts . . . ." Drake u. Castume Armour,
/nc., No. L7-2O67t, 2018 WL
4261989, at *1 (5th Cir. Sept. 6,2018)'
z
No. 18-20064
agreement. Niello had not appeared, answered, or filed any
responsive
pleadings in the earlier suits fiIed in Texas.
In the instant case, Murphy Austin and Niello specially
appeared and
moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper
venue, and failure

30. to state a claim. The district court held a hearing at which it
considered the
settlement agreement and declarations from NieIIo's general
counsel and a
Murphy Austin representative that set out the jurisdictional
facts for each
entity. The district court granted the motions to dismiss at the
hearing. The
district court then entered an order confirming that it had
granted Murphy
Austin's and Niello's motions to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction, 'oas
explained on the record."
Drake moved for reconsideration, and the district court denied
the
motion. On appeal, Drake did not provide a transcript of the
hearing at which
the district court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
We review a district court's dismissal of a complaint for lack of
personal
jurisdiction de novo.2 We apply a three-step analysis for our
specific personal
jurisdiction inquiry:
(1) whether the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum

31. state, i.e., whether it purposely directed its activities toward the
forum state or purposefully availed itself of the privileges of
conducting activities there; (2) whether the plaintiffs cause of
action arises out of or results from the defendant's forum-
related
contacts; and (3) whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction is
fair and reasonable.s
We have now reviewed in detail the entire record on appeal,
including
the parties'hriefs and the record excerpts. We note that Murphy
Austin is a
2 Monkton
3 Id. at 433
2006)).
Ins. Serus., Ltd. u. Ritter, 768 F.3d 429, 43L (5th Cir. 2Ol4).
(quoting Seiferth u. Helicopteros Atuneros,
lnc.,472F.3d266,27L (5th Cir.
No. 18-20064
law firm organized under the laws of California, has no offi.ces
in Texas, does
not advertise in Texas, and has no attorney licensed to practice
law in Texas.
Similarly, Niello is a California company, has no offices,
dealerships, bank

32. accounts, or a registered agent in Texas, and does not regularly
conduct
business in Texas or directly target its advertisements to Texas
residents.
Drake signed the settlement agreement in California and agreed
to purchase
the car there. Niello's only relevant contact with Texas was its
Cars.com
advertisement, which was not specifically directed at Texas.
We agree with the district court that neither Murphy Austin nor
Niello
has sufficient minimum contacts with Texas to give rise to
specific personal
jurisdiction there. "We have consistently held that 'merely
contracting with a
resident of [a] forum state' does not create minimum contacts
sufficient to
establish personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant."a
This is
particularly true when, as here, "an out-of-state defendant has
no physical
presence in the forurn, conducts no business there, and the
contract at issue
'was not signed in the state and did not call for performance in
the state."'5

33. Neither are Defendants' contacts with Texas sufficiently
"substantial,
continuous and systematic" to render themooessentially at
home" in Texas.6
We conclude that the district court's analysis and conclusions
are correct
in all respects and are free of reversible error. We therefore
affirm that court's
dismissal of this action.
AFFIRMtrD.
a Blahes u. DynCorp Int', L.L.C.,732F. App'x 346,347 (5th Cir.
2018) (quoting I/olI
Oil & Gas Corp. u. Haruey,80l F.zd 773,778 (5th Cir' 1986))'
5Id. (quoting Monkton,768 F.3d at 433)'
G Sangha u. f,{auig8 ShipManagement Priuate Ltd.,882 F.3d
96, 101-02 (5th Cir' 2018)
(quoting Goid.year Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. u. Brawn,564
U.S. 915, 919 (2011))'
4
bi L(r-'*'* ',&''* *8-**
L'r'"'*r,i $-- 'o*--'&

34. t*.-r
:*qJ L-of
V
I*tr'*
. tr,
I a LA**'y'
-(lffi*',f*
'il}*"*'* .ii*l4|- 1.),*ue- *
&-"'*Tu*J -lfl,-.- l'io -e-zLti-
I
U
-/'- I(*
'*:J ,lz.-x--
*f .fu^'f*'* ni-*tEff -"f
a,*."*-*ff-n-
ll -*--
i's-u-.{- ,*-}-,rrL'lC-
tr*t
:; *r- rC**-*y*t*
.:vt-rr(-- #'"**a-ff*&
ft*-*Lt-
f' r, r
, - {k-*r-E ,'-t-2-t;"./'

35. V b,
-*,,;i*u-- "e{-.R-
It +- . ,,0--,:t-.n-;-tX-fe-'Ln-+€ 'Q'"
' ^-&--.e-4,-
_':*- ft " ,LL+.r<.-z- b; i ;"
i;1ufu,*,r.*1r-.',(*
.*'fG'L
./l
--d- !i
Lr +,=l)",v
o
,lt-_L 'frfl
J y*
d-- 1r#'g^-*)
(-
-J,J-4-/
-{.*.u-.4/- -/-
J ft si*'t':-ae
**"1f*
?*-''.iU e->'t--*+.1-
l'''^t-zt>c'-'L /i"-**

36. Ugr-*"* -# tr
f
r tYr-
3r"--., -z'>'
You will write about a legal issue involving yourself, or
someone you know, or a legal issue that
you know about although you don’t know the persons involved.
If none of these apply, then
make up a fictional legal issue.
Regarding this issue, you should state what the issue(s) is (are),
how it (they) should be resolved,
and the authorities for your opinion as to how it (they) should
be resolved.
If the issue or issues have been resolved, please write about
whether the matter was resolved
correctly and, if in your opinion it was not resolved correctly,
how it should have been resolved.
The paper should be 4 – 5 pages, word-processed, double-
spaced, with one inch margins and no
more than 12 point font. Use several authorities and cite to
these as you write the paper.
The hard copy paper is due in class on November 7 before class
starts. Affix the pages together
with a staple or paper clip. A student who demonstrates the
proper amount of effort will receive
5 points added to the average of the four tests.