Gulf Coast International, L.L.C. v. the Research Corporation of the University of Hawaii

NO. 01-15-00625-CV
_________________________________________________________
FILED IN
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 1st COURT OF APPEALS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON
12/11/2015 4:24:44 PM
_________________________________________________________
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
GULF COAST INTERNATIONAL, L.L.C., Clerk
Appellant
v.

THE RESEARCH CORPORATION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII,
Appellee
_________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 333rd Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas
The Honorable Joseph J. “Tad” Halbach, Jr. presiding
Cause No. 2014-05868
_________________________________________________________

SUR-REPLY OF APPELLEE
_________________________________________________________

Blank Rome LLP Blank Rome LLP

Michael K. Bell David Meyer
State Bar No. 02081200 State Bar No. 24052106
717 Texas Ave., Suite 1400 717 Texas Ave., Suite 1400
Houston, Texas 77002 Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: (713) 228-6601 Telephone: (713) 228-6601
Facsimile: (713) 228-6605 Facsimile: (713) 228-6605
mbell@blankrome.com dmeyer@blankrome.com

Attorneys for Appellee

December 11, 2015

144163.06501/101794599v.1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

SUR-REPLY .............................................................................................................. 1

PRAYER .................................................................................................................... 3

i
144163.06501/101794599v.1
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)

Cases
Bullion v. Gillespie,
895 F.2d 213 (5th Cir. 1990) ............................................................................ 1, 2

Clark v. Noyes,
871 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1994, no writ) ............................................ 2

Henkel v. Emjo Investments, Ltd.,
No. 01-14-00703-CV, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 9058 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 27, 2015, no pet. hist.) .................................................. 1

Jack B. Anglin Co. v. Tipps,
842 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. 1992) ........................................................................1, 2, 3

N.P. v. Methodist Hosp.,
190 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet.
denied)................................................................................................................... 2

P.V.F., Inc. v. Pro Metals, Inc.,
60 S.W.3d 320 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet.
denied)................................................................................................................... 1

Schlobohm v. Schapiro,
784 S.W.2d 355 (Tex. 1990) ................................................................................ 3

Touradji v. Beach Capital P’ship, L.P.,
316 S.W.3d 15 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.) .......................... 2

WesternGeco L.L.C. v. Ion Geophysical Corp.,
776 F. Supp. 2d 342 (S.D. Tex. 2011) .............................................................. 1, 2

ii
144163.06501/101794599v.1
 SUR-REPLY

While RCUH does not agree with any of the arguments raised in GCI’s reply

brief, which includes citations to a total of twelve opinions that were not included in

either GCI’s appellant’s brief or RCUH’s appellee’s brief,1 RCUH briefly addresses

the following assertions included in GCI’s reply:

Accordingly, the Court must accept as true GCI’s uncontroverted allegations
and evidence that the KOK is a commercial vessel. See Jack B. Anglin Co. v.
Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 270 (Tex. 1992) (reviewing a summary judgment, the
court noted it “must accept as true the clear, direct, and positive evidence of
an undisputed affidavit, even of a party’s agent”); Bullion v. Gillespie, 895
F.2d 213, 216-17 (5th Cir. 1990) (noting that on a special appearance, the
court accepts as true all uncontroverted allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint
and resolves in the plaintiff’s favor all conflicts between the parties’
affidavits); WesternGeco L.L.C. v. Ion Geophysical Corp., 776 F. Supp. 2d
342, 353 (S.D. Tex. 2011) (“Any genuine, material conflicts between the facts
established by the parties’ affidavits and other evidence are resolved in favor
of plaintiff for purposes of determining whether a prima facie case [for
personal jurisdiction] exists.”) (Appellant’s Reply at p. 6.)

Accordingly, the Court must accept as true Van Vleit’s direct, unequivocal
testimony confirming that 90% of RCUH’s contacts with GCI were with Van
Vleit in Houston. (Appellant’s Reply at pp. 7-8.)

RCUH’s objection to Van Vleit’s testimony as “self-serving” is baseless.
RCUH failed to challenge Van Vleit’s competency, personal knowledge, or
foundation. Moreover, without evidence contradicting the allegedly self-
serving statements, the court may accept as true Van Vleit’s testimony. See
Henkel v. Emjo Investments, Ltd., No. 01-14-00703-CV, 2015 Tex. App.
LEXIS 9058, *11 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 27, 2015, no pet.

1
These include P.V.F., Inc. v. Pro Metals, Inc., 60 S.W.3d 320 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
2001, pet. denied). RCUH acknowledges that P.V.F. was cited by GCI in one of its trial court
motions filed after the June 5, 2015, hearing on RCUH’s special appearance. See CR 510.
However, in its response to that particular motion, RCUH explained in detail why P.V.F. does not
support GCI’s position. See CR 588-590.

1
144163.06501/101794599v.1
 hist.) (“In conducting our review, we accept as true both the allegations in the
pleadings and the evidence on file.”); see also Touradji v. Beach Capital
P’ship, L.P., 316 S.W.3d 15, 23 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no
pet.) (court is to accept as true the allegations in the petition); Jack B. Anglin
Co, 842 S.W.2d at 270; Bullion, 895 F.2d at 216-17; WesternGeco, 776 F.
Supp. 2d at 353. (Appellant’s Reply at p. 9, footnote 11.)

In its appellant’s brief, GCI limited its discussion of the applicable standard

of review to one sentence that did not include any of the arguments quoted above.

See Appellant’s Brief at p. 13. (RCUH respectfully submits that the full standard of

review is set forth in RCUH’s appellee’s brief. See Appellee’s Brief at pp. 14-15.)

Therefore, the arguments quoted above were waived and should be disregarded by

the Court. N.P. v. Methodist Hosp., 190 S.W.3d 217, 225 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st

Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (“An issue raised for the first time in a reply brief is

ordinarily waived.”).

Additionally, in citing to Bullion v. Gillespie, 895 F.2d 213 (5th Cir. 1990)

and WesternGeco L.L.C. v. Ion Geophysical Corp., 776 F. Supp. 2d 342 (S.D. Tex.

2011), GCI appears to be asking the Court to apply the evidentiary burden-shifting

framework applicable in federal court to personal jurisdiction challenges. However,

this is not applicable to personal jurisdiction challenges in Texas state courts. Clark

v. Noyes, 871 S.W.2d 508, 511 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1994, no writ) (“However,

Bullion addressed the procedure for determining personal jurisdiction in federal

court…. Although we use the federal due process standard in analyzing minimum

2
144163.06501/101794599v.1
contacts, see, e.g., Schlobohm v. Schapiro, 784 S.W.2d 355, 357 (Tex. 1990), we do

not use federal procedural rules in determining how such proof must be made.”).

Finally, regarding GCI’s reliance on Jack B. Anglin Co. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d

266, 270 (Tex. 1992), RCUH notes that the opinion concerns evidentiary standards

for summary judgments, not special appearances, and is therefore inapplicable to

GCI’s appeal. Even if it were, as set forth in its appellee’s brief, RCUH has pointed

to the evidence that was before the trial court contradicting/disputing Van Vleit’s

affidavit testimony. See, e.g., Appellee’s Brief at pp. 9-12.

PRAYER

Appellee The Research Corporation of the University of Hawaiʻi respectfully

requests that the trial court’s order granting its special appearance be affirmed, and

for such other and further relief to which it may show itself to be justly entitled.

3
144163.06501/101794599v.1
 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ David G. Meyer
Michael K. Bell
State Bar No. 02081200
David Meyer
State Bar No. 24052106
BLANK ROME LLP
717 Texas Ave., Suite 1400
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: (713) 228-6601
Facsimile: (713) 228-6605
Email: mbell@blankrome.com;
dmeyer@blankrome.com
Attorneys for Appellee, The
Research Corporation of the
University of Hawaiʻi

4
144163.06501/101794599v.1
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to Rules 6.3 and 9.5(b), (d), and (e) of the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure, I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument
was served on all counsel of record on this the 11th day of December, 2015, as
follows:

Via electronic service:
Jeffrey B. Kaiser
Kaiser, P.C.
Enterprise Bank Tower
2211 Norfolk, Suite 528
Houston, Texas 77098

and

Kelley M. Keller
Ellison & Keller, P.C.
5120 Woodway Drive, Suite 6019
Houston, Texas 77056

/s/ David G. Meyer
David G. Meyer

-5-
144163.06501/101794599v.1
 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(2) because this brief contains 779 words, excluding the

parts of the brief exempted by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(1).

2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 9.4(e) and the type style requirements of Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 9.4(e) because this brief has been prepared in a proportionally

spaced typeface using Microsoft Word in 14-point Times New Roman font or larger.

-6-
144163.06501/101794599v.1