Stapp v. Steadfast Investment Properties, Inc., No. 4:2018cv01502 - Document 11 (S.D. Tex. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 6 MOTION to Dismiss (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Stapp v. Steadfast Investment Properties, Inc. Doc. 11 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION BRAD STAPP, § § § § § § § § § § § Plaintiff, v. STEADFAST INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, INC. d/b/a STEADFAST COMPANIES, Defendant. August 28, 2018 David J. Bradley, Clerk CIVIL ACTION NO. H-18-1502 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Brad Stapp ("Stapp" or "Plaintiff"), brought this action against defendant, Steadfast Investment Properties, d/b/a Steadfast Companies ("Defendant") . 1 Inc. Pending before the court is Defendant Steadfast Investment Properties, Inc. d/b/a Steadfast Companies' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue, Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens, and, Subject Thereto, Original Answer ("Motion to Dismiss") (Docket Entry No. 6). For the reasons stated below, the Motion to Dismiss will be granted. Before filing this action Stapp sued Steadfast Investment Properties, Inc., Steadfast Companies, Inc., and Steadfast Capital Markets Group, LLC ("Steadfast Capital Markets") in a Texas state 1 See Plaintiff Brad Stapp's Original Complaint ("Complaint"), Docket Entry No. 2. Dockets.Justia.com court for negligence, arising out Mexico. 2 of gross negligence, injuries Steadfast he suffered Investment and premises on December Properties, Inc. liability 2016, 6, and in Steadfast Capital Markets filed a special appearance seeking to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. 3 On January 8, 2018, the Texas court granted the special appearances of Steadfast Investment Properties, Inc. and Steadfast Capital Markets. 4 ordered that "Plaintiff's claims against The Texas court Defendants Steadfast Investment Properties, Inc.'s and Steadfast Capital Markets Group, LLC are hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction." 5 filed a Non-Suit Without Prejudice Stapp did not appeal claims Stapp against Steadfast filed the pending the to Steadfast Companies, state court dismissal of his Investment action as (Stapp later in Properties, this court Inc. based Instead, on his 2 See Plaintiff's Original Petition ("Original Petition") , Exhibit 6 to Motion to Dismiss, Docket Entry No. 6-6, pp. 4-6. 3 See Defendants Steadfast Investment Properties, Inc.'s and Steadfast Capital Markets Group, LLC's Special Appearance, Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens, and, Subject Thereto, Original Answer ("Special Appearance"), Exhibit 2 to Motion to Dismiss, Docket Entry No. 6-2. 4 0rder Granting Defendants Steadfast Investment Properties, Inc.'s and Steadfast Capital Markets Group, LLC's Special Appearance, Exhibit 1 to Motion to Dismiss, Docket Entry No. 6-1, p. 2. 6 0rder on Plaintiff's Non-Suit Without Prejudice, Exhibit 7 to Motion to Dismiss, Docket Entry No. 6-7. -2- December 6, 2016, injuries in Mexico and alleging the same causes of action he alleged in his Original Petition in state court. 7 Steadfast Investment Properties, Inc. argues that because the Texas state court dismissed Stapp's claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction, collateral estoppel bars Stapp's claims in this court. 8 In the alternative, Steadfast Investment Properties, Inc. argues that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over it on the merits, and moves to dismiss for improper venue and forum non conveniens . 9 In his Response Stapp does not address Steadfast Investment Properties, Inc.'s collateral estoppel arguments. 10 "A court sitting jurisdiction only to the applicable state law.'" F. App'x 338, Peterson, 342 diversity 'may extent permitted a Dontos v. (5th Cir. 117 F.3d 278, S . Ct . 6 91 ( 19 9 8 ) ) . in 281 2014) exercise personal state court under Vendomation NZ Limited, (quoting Allred v. (5th Cir. 1997), cert. 582 Moore denied, & 118 "In Texas, collateral estoppel precludes the relitigation of any ultimate issue actually litigated and essential to the judgment in the prior suit." Deckert v. Wachovia Student 7 See Complaint, Docket Entry No. 2, pp. 1-6. 8 Motion to Dismiss, Docket Entry No. 6, p. 4. 9 Id. at 4-6. 10 See Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue, and Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens ("Plaintiff's Response"), Docket Entry No. 9. -3- Financial Services, Inc., 963 F.2d 816, 819 (5th Cir. 1992) (citing Suber v. Ohio Medical Products, 811 S.W.2d 646, 652 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, writ requested)) The undisputed evidence shows that the parties actually litigated the question of personal jurisdiction in state court. See Deckert, 963 F.2d at 819 (concluding that because the defendant "made a special amenability to parties appearance the not have jurisdiction actually jurisdiction in lawsuit, questioning of the Texas courts [,] litigated the question of its [t] he personal Because the Texas court held that it did • II ) personal the jurisdiction over Steadfast Investment Properties, Inc., Stapp "cannot now seek to relitigate in federal court the personal jurisdiction issue which was the basis of the state court's order of dismissal. Properties, therefore Inc. 's GRANTED, Motion and to this Steadfast 11 Dismiss action (Docket will be Investment Entry No. dismissed 6) is without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 28th day of August, 2018. SIM LAKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -4-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
