EL PUERTO DE LIVERPOOL, S. A. DE C.V. v. SERVI MUNDO LLANTERO S. A. DE C. V.--Appeal from 92nd District Court of Hidalgo County

NUMBER 13-01-552-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

EL PUERTO DE LIVERPOOL,

S.A. DE C.V., Appellant,

v.

SERVI MUNDO LLANTERO

S.A. DE C.V., Appellee.

On appeal from the 92nd District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

CONCURRING OPINION ON

MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

Before the Court En Banc

Concurring Opinion by Justice Dorsey

I concur in this Court=s denial of appellant=s motion for rehearing en banc, but write separately to address two matters. First, the status of the plaintiff in the underlying litigation does not bear on the issue of whether the State of Texas can exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Also, that the defendant maintains a bank account in Texas, is not in itself sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction.

I agree that the actions of El Puerto=s subsidiaries in the State of Texas subjects El Puerto, the parent corporation, to general in personam jurisdiction. El Puerto de Liverpool, S.A. de C.V. v. Servi Mundi Llanter S.A. de CV, 2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 3891, at *24B*26 (Corpus Christi, May 30, 2002, no pet. h.); see Daimler-Benz Aktiengesellschaft v. Olson, 21 S.W.3d 707, 720 (Tex. App.CAustin 2000, pet. dism=d w.o.j.), writ denied, DaimlerChrysler Aktiengesellschaft, 152 L. Ed. 2d 1021, 122 S. Ct. 1960, 2002 U.S. LEXIS 3596, 70 U.S.L.W. 3707 (U.S. 2002). The subsidiaries conduct substantial business in Texas which is integral to the overall operations of the Mexican parent corporation. That kind of systematic and continuous conduct in the state of Texas satisfies the minimum contacts analysis. Texas may properly assert in personam jurisdiction over El Puerto on that basis.

______________________________

J. BONNER DORSEY,

Justice

Publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).

Opinion delivered and filed

this 23rd day of August, 2002.