## Facts

- Wien Air Alaska, Inc., an Alaskan corporation with its base of operations in Texas, pursued aircraft-leasing and expansion opportunities in Europe.
- Gerald I. Brandt, a German citizen, served as Wien Air’s attorney from about August 1989 to April 1991 in connection with European aviation transactions.
- Brandt traveled to Texas in 1989 related to Wien Air’s acquisition and later attended meetings in Texas in April 1991, but conducted much of his work through communications and meetings abroad.
- In September 1990, Wien Air authorized Brandt to form two German companies to maintain airport facilities in Germany.
- Wien Air later learned Brandt’s law partner represented a competing entity (GAC) and its shareholder; Wien Air alleged Brandt falsely assured it that he represented only Wien Air’s interests.
- In early 1991, Brandt communicated proposed terms for a GAC-related transaction, including a substantial earnest-money payment and a purchase price in deutsche marks.
- Brandt also arranged for Wien Air to purchase an interest in a Berlin aviation-related company; Wien Air alleged that despite documentation suggesting a holding-company structure, the equity interest was not delivered to Wien Air and was instead acquired by Brandt.
- Wien Air alleged Brandt committed fraud and breached fiduciary duties through numerous phone calls, letters, and faxes sent into Texas that contained misrepresentations and omissions central to the alleged wrongdoing.

## Issues

1. Whether Texas courts could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Brandt based on his Texas-directed communications and limited visits, where the claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty arose from those contacts.
2. Whether exercising jurisdiction over a foreign defendant in Texas would be unfair or unreasonable under due process.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed the dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction and remanded.
- The court held Brandt had sufficient minimum contacts with Texas because the alleged misrepresentations and omissions were purposefully directed into Texas and formed the basis of the claims.
- The court held exercising jurisdiction in Texas was not unfair or unreasonable given the parties’ interests and Texas’s interest in adjudicating alleged torts affecting a Texas-based company.

## Legal Principles

- Specific personal jurisdiction exists when the defendant purposefully directs forum-related conduct at the forum and the plaintiff’s claims arise out of or relate to that conduct.
- Physical presence in the forum is not required; communications into the forum can constitute jurisdictionally significant contacts.
- In intentional-tort cases, allegedly tortious communications directed at the forum (e.g., calls, letters, faxes) may establish minimum contacts when those communications are central to the cause of action.
- Once minimum contacts are shown, jurisdiction must also satisfy “fair play and substantial justice,” considering burden on the defendant, the forum’s interest, the plaintiff’s interest in effective relief, and efficiency in resolving the dispute.

## Conclusion

Because Wien Air’s fraud and fiduciary-duty claims arose from Brandt’s alleged Texas-directed misrepresentations and omissions during an ongoing attorney-client relationship, due process permitted Texas to exercise specific personal jurisdiction, and doing so was not constitutionally unreasonable.


Wien Air Alaska, Inc. v. Brandt, 195 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 1999)