Stapp v. Steadfast Investment Properties, Inc.
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 6 MOTION to Dismiss (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)
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")
1
in a Texas state
See Plaintiff Brad Stapp's Original Complaint ("Complaint"),
Docket Entry No. 2.
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-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?