Decision of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals – August 5, 2026s –

This discussion of specific jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer may be of interest to you.

No. 04-25-00506-CV   Guangdong Lvtong New Energy Electric Vehicle Technology Co. Ltd. v. John Montague, et al. (224th Judicial Dist. Court, Bexar County, Texas, Judge Garza)

[Meza, Author, with Spears and McCray, Justices]

Jurisdiction.

Background.  Montague and Rowton were injured when a golf cart tipped over. The cart was owned by Sonterra Country Club; it had purchased the cart from Custom Golf Services. Club employees had reported tipping issues with the cart, and Custom sent an employee to inspect it. Custom’s employee was driving the cart, with Montague and Rowton as passengers, when it flipped, killing Rowton and seriously injuring Montague. Montague and Rowton’s estate brought this action against Sonterra; Custom and its employee; ICON EV, the golf cart’s U.S. distributor; and Guangdong Lvtong, the cart’s Chinese manufacturer. Lvtong filed a special appearance challenging personal jurisdiction, which the trial court denied after jurisdictional discovery. Lvtong appeals.

The discovery evidence showed Lvtong manufactured “semifinished” carts and sold them FOB Shanghai to ICON, a Florida company, which handled final assembly, marketing, and distribution to ports of its own choosing. Lvtong had no Texas offices, employees, property, or registration to do business in Texas. Its director of international sales testified that between 2022 and 2024,  Lvtong shipped roughly 3,000 units to Texas (out of the 55,000 units sold to ICON); it also shipped an additional 25,000 units to an unaffiliated Dallas company; he stated that he had visited Texas once or twice on customer relations trips.

Issues:

1. Whether Lvtong waived its special appearance through subsequent filings or by amending a defective affidavit; and
2. Whether Lvtong’s Texas contracts – shipment volume and its sales director’s visits – established specific personal jurisdictions consistent with due process.

Discussion.

1. The parties agree Lvtong is not subject to general jurisdiction in Texas and the dispute concerns specific jurisdiction.
2. On the issue of waiver of the special appearance, Lvtong did not waive it because TEX. R. CIV. P. 120a expressly permits curative amendments, and each subsequent filing was made “subject to” Lvtong’s special appearance.
3. On the issue of specific jurisdiction, the court relies on the Texas Supreme Court’s “stream-of-commerce-plus” framework from BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co. v. Shaik, 716 S.W. 3d 98 (Tex. 2025) and Hyundam Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Swacina, 716 S.W.3d 167 (Tex. 2025) (per curiam), which hold that a foreign manufacturer’s shipment of products into Texas, without more, does not establish purposeful availment. Because ICON – not Lvtong – unilaterally selected shipping destinations and controlled marketing, Lvtong exercised no control over the  distribution chain bringing the carts to Texas, and shipping volume could not substitute for evidence of Texas-targeting. Even assuming the sales director’s visits constituted purposeful availment, the court found no substantial connection between those visits and the operative facts of this products-liability suit, as required under Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W. 3d 569 (Tex. 2007) and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court California, San Francisco Cnty., 582 U.S. 255 (2017).

The court reverses the trial court’s denial of the special appearance and renders judgment dismissing all claims against Lvtong for lack of personal jurisdiction.