Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Todd Enright v. Asclepius Panacea, LLC Asclepius Panacea GP, LLC Daily Pharmacy, LLC Daily Pharmacy GP, LLC And Toth Enterprises II, P .A. D/B/A Victory Medical Center
Citation: Not availableDocket: 03-15-00348-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; November 2, 2015; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The appeal in Enright v. Asclepius Panacea, LLC centers on the denial of special appearance for nonresident defendant Todd Enright. The trial court's ruling was based on Enright's involvement in communications with Texas residents while acting as an agent for White Winston, acknowledging that his role does not provide blanket immunity from specific personal jurisdiction claims in Texas. The legal framework requires that, to establish personal jurisdiction over a nonresident agent in their individual capacity, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the agent purposefully availed themselves of the Texas forum and sought personal benefits from it. This principle is supported by case law indicating that mere benefits accruing to the agent's principal company do not suffice; the agent must individually seek a benefit, advantage, or profit from Texas. Relevant cases are cited, underscoring that any actions taken by the agent must be for personal gain rather than solely advancing corporate interests. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that Enright sought any personal benefit from Texas, thus undermining the basis for establishing personal jurisdiction over him individually. Todd Enright's role as an officer in charge of franchise sales was personally advantageous, particularly during the company's financial difficulties. However, there is no evidence indicating that he sought personal benefits from transactions related to Texas. The appeal record clarifies that Enright acted solely on behalf of White Winston, the creditor of QVL, and has not engaged personally with Texas in the past decade. Enright does not own QVL's debt or have an equity interest in White Winston. Although he holds the title of 'partner' at White Winston, this is merely a label, as he is neither an officer nor an employee of the company. Enright works for Lillian White Investments and consults for White Winston, reporting to multiple superiors, with no evidence of bonuses or commissions linked to his performance based on QVL or White Winston’s activities in Texas. Consequently, Texas courts lack personal jurisdiction over Enright in his individual capacity, as there is no evidence of him pursuing personal benefits from Texas.