 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cartlidge v. Hernandez12/2/1999
The issue in this case involves the validity of the assertion of in personam jurisdiction over a non- resident attorney. Appellees Aida Hernandez and Martha Kolpek sued Blaine Cartlidge (Cartlidge) in Harris County asserting legal malpractice. On February 22, 1999, Cartlidge, appellant, entered a special appearance challenging the trial court's jurisdiction over him. The trial court denied appellant's special appearance. Cartlidge brings this interlocutory appeal pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. ยง 51.014(a)(7), challenging only the trial court's denial of his special appearance and motion to dismiss. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I.
Factual Background
We will limit the Discussion of the facts to only those pertinent to the question of the trial court's jurisdiction. Appellees Hernandez and Kolpek, plaintiffs below, engaged Cartlidge to represent them in a lawsuit against DuPont and Methodist Hospital. Hernandez and Kolpek solicited Cartlidge to represent them and file suit in Nevada through Lowell Cage, a Houston attorney, who was familiar with Cartlidge's work in products liability litigation in Nevada. Hernandez is a Texas resident, but Kolpek is a resident of Oklahoma. Cartlidge is a licensed Nevada attorney who represented at least twenty-five clients from around the country in such litigation in Nevada. Cartlidge is not licensed to practice law in Texas.
Appellant sent four documents into Texas which constituted offers to provide legal representation for Hernandez and Kolpek against DuPont, and others. First, appellant sent letter agreements to Hernandez and Kolpek accepting representation and specifying the split of the fees between Cage and Cartlidge. These are three party agreements, and are on the letterhead of Blaine E. Cartlidge, attorney at law. Each letter agreement specifies that Cartlidge will be lead counsel.
Second, Cartlidge sent Hernandez and Kolpek retainer agreements. These agreements are also on Cartlidge's letterhead, but it is an agreement only between appellant and the clients.
The first paragraph of the two retainer agreements is identical except for the parties' names, and provides as follows:
It is hereby agreed by and between [Client] and Blain E. Cartlidge, or his duly authorized representative, (hereafter "Attorney"), that Attorney shall represent Client against E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., and others, for injuries and/or damages sustained arising out of the TMJ implant surgery and the consequences therefrom.
These retainer agreements are generic in nature in that they do not specify that appellant will only provide representation in Nevada. These agreements also specifically provide that Cartlidge has full authority to associate other attorneys, and retain such experts and other assistants which he deems necessary to prosecute the client's case against DuPont and others. Both the letter agreements and the retainer agreements were sent to Houston for signature by Hernandez and Kolpek. These documents were duly signed there by the clients and returned to Cartlidge in Nevada. Although the contracts were signed by the appellees in Texas, it is undisputed that Cartlidge neither signed the contracts nor performed any of his obligations under the contracts in Texas.
In addition to the agreements Cartlidge sent to his clients in the underlying lawsuit, Cartlidge has had other significant contacts with this State. First, from the record, it appears Cartlidge represented ninety-three clients, including Hernandez, in a product liability class action against Methodist Hospital, litigated in Harris County. Second, in addition to the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|