7/10/2024 6:11 PM
`FELICIA PITRE
`DISTRICT CLERK
`DALLAS CO., TEXAS
`Jenifer Trujillo DEPUTY
`
`CAUSE NO. DC-24-08435
`
`F2 EQUITIES LLC, CANE] CAPITAL
`GROUP, LLC, and Jk CAPITAL PARTNERS,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`Vv.
`
`PRIVVY INVESTMENTS, LLC,
`GAI INVESTMENTS and MANAGEMENT
`
`GROUP, LLC, NATHAN FULLER, KARLO
`KULJANAC, et al.,
`Defendants
`
`teG06eGGGOOOe
`
`IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
`
`134rd DISTRICT COURT
`
`DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
`
`KARLO KULJANAC’S SPECIAL APPEARANCE
`
`Pursuant to TEX. R CIV, P. 120a, Defendant Karlo Kuljanacfiles this Special
`
`Appearance and objects to the exercise of personal jurisdiction over him. Kuljanac asks the
`
`Court to sustain his Special Appearance under Rule 120a and dismiss the claims against him for
`
`lack of personal jurisdiction.
`
`Kuljanac, a Florida resident, has no contacts with the State of Texas. He has neverlived
`
`in Texas, never owned land in Texas, never paid taxes in Texas, never sent goodsor services to
`
`Texas. More importantly, the Petition contains no allegations that Kuljanac has contacts with the
`
`State of Texas in his capacity as an individual. Kuljanac is the principal officer of Defendant
`
`GAT Investments and Management Group, LLC (“GAI”), and the Petition properly alleges that
`
`GAI had contacts with Texas. But there are no allegations in the Petition that Kuljanac
`
`individually engaged in any contacts with Texas outside of his role at GAI. Accordingly,
`
`Kuljanac objects to being brought into court in Texas and asks the Court to dismiss the claims
`
`against him for lack of personaljurisdiction.
`
`
`FELICIA PITRE
`DISTRICT CLERK
`DALLAS CO., TEXAS
`Jenifer Trujillo DEPUTY
`
`CAUSE NO. DC-24-08435
`
`F2 EQUITIES LLC, CANE] CAPITAL
`GROUP, LLC, and Jk CAPITAL PARTNERS,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`Vv.
`
`PRIVVY INVESTMENTS, LLC,
`GAI INVESTMENTS and MANAGEMENT
`
`GROUP, LLC, NATHAN FULLER, KARLO
`KULJANAC, et al.,
`Defendants
`
`teG06eGGGOOOe
`
`IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
`
`134rd DISTRICT COURT
`
`DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
`
`KARLO KULJANAC’S SPECIAL APPEARANCE
`
`Pursuant to TEX. R CIV, P. 120a, Defendant Karlo Kuljanacfiles this Special
`
`Appearance and objects to the exercise of personal jurisdiction over him. Kuljanac asks the
`
`Court to sustain his Special Appearance under Rule 120a and dismiss the claims against him for
`
`lack of personal jurisdiction.
`
`Kuljanac, a Florida resident, has no contacts with the State of Texas. He has neverlived
`
`in Texas, never owned land in Texas, never paid taxes in Texas, never sent goodsor services to
`
`Texas. More importantly, the Petition contains no allegations that Kuljanac has contacts with the
`
`State of Texas in his capacity as an individual. Kuljanac is the principal officer of Defendant
`
`GAT Investments and Management Group, LLC (“GAI”), and the Petition properly alleges that
`
`GAI had contacts with Texas. But there are no allegations in the Petition that Kuljanac
`
`individually engaged in any contacts with Texas outside of his role at GAI. Accordingly,
`
`Kuljanac objects to being brought into court in Texas and asks the Court to dismiss the claims
`
`against him for lack of personaljurisdiction.
`
`
`
`LEGAL DISC
`
`ION
`
`Texas courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident only if “(1) the Texas
`
`long-arm statute authorizes the exercise ofjurisdiction, and (2) the exercise ofjurisdiction is
`
`consistent with federal and state constitutional due-process guarantees.” Moki Mac River
`
`Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569, 574 (Tex. 2007); Old Republic Nat’l Title Ins. Co. v. Bell,
`
`549 S.W.3d 550, 558-59 (Tex. 2018).
`
`A court may have either “general”or “specific” personal jurisdiction. Bel/, 549 S.W.3d at
`
`559. These analyses require the Court to determine whether the defendants have “certain
`
`minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenanceofthe suit does not offend
`
`‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” /d. (citing Int’? Shoe Co., 326 US. at
`
`316 and Moki Mac River Expeditions, 221 S.W.3d at 575). A defendant establishes minimum
`
`contacts with a state when it “purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities
`
`within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” Bei/, 549 §.W.3d
`
`at 359 (citing Retamco Operating, Inc. v. Republic Drilling Co., 278 S.W.3d 333, 338 (Tex.
`
`2009}). The analytical framework for jurisdiction is well-known:(1) only the defendant’s
`
`contacts with the forum are relevant, not the unilateral activity of another party or a third person;
`
`(2) the contacts relied upon must be purposeful rather than random, fortuitous, or attenuated; and
`
`(3) the defendant must seek some benefit, advantage or profit by availing itself of the
`
`jurisdiction. Bell, 549 $.W.3d at 559.
`
`General personal jurisdiction is established when a defendant’s contacts “are so
`
`‘continuous and systematic’ as to render[it] essentially at home in the forum State.” M& F
`
`Worldwide Corp. v. Pepsi-Cola Metro. Bottling Co., Inc., 512 S.W.3d 878, 885 (Tex. 2017;
`
`
`
`Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 127 (2014). The inquiry requires a demanding minimum
`
`contacts analysis with a “substantially higher threshold [than specific jurisdiction]”
`
`demonstrating contacts so pervasive that the defendant would be subject to jurisdiction in the
`
`state for any dispute. PHC-Minden, L.P.
`
`vy. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 235 8.W.3d 163, 168 (Tex.
`
`2007); Searcy, 496 S.W.3d at 72-73.
`
`Specific personal jurisdiction in Texas over a nonresident defendant requires (1) the
`
`defendant’s purposeful availment of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state,
`
`thus invoking the benefits and protections ofits laws, and (2) a “substantial connection” between
`
`those purposeful activities and the operative facts of the litigation, also called “relatedness.” M &
`
`F Worldwide Corp., 512 S.W.3d at 890.
`
`Thefirst prong, purposeful availment, requires contacts that the defendant “purposefully
`
`directed” into the forum state. M&F Worldwide Corp. v. Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling
`
`Company, Inc., 5312 S.W.3d 878 (Tex. 2017)(two meetings conducted in Texas insufficient to
`
`establish minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction); Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc.v.
`
`Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777, 785 (Tex. 2005). The second prong, relatedness, lies at the heart of
`
`specific jurisdiction by defining the required nexus between the nonresident defendant, the
`
`litigation, and the forum.” Moki Mac River Expeditions, 221 S.W.3d at 579. In other words,
`
`specific personal jurisdiction can be established if the defendant’s alleged liability arises out of
`
`the activity conducted within the forum. Jd. at 576.
`
`
`
`FACTUALAPPLICATION
`
`i.
`
`Plaintiffs cannot support a “general” personal jurisdiction finding.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs have not alleged any purposeful contacts between Kuljanac and Texas,let
`
`alone contacts that are “continuous and systematic” so as to render them “at home”in Texas. See
`
`Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S, 117, 127 (2014) (“For an individual, the paradigm forum for
`
`the exercise of general jurisdiction is the individual’s domicile; for a corporation, it is an
`
`equivalent place, one in which the corporation is fairly regarded as at home.”) (quoting
`
`Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S_A. v. Brawn, 564 U.S. 915, 924 (2011)); see also See Old
`
`Republic Nat'l Title Ins. Co. v. Bell, 549 S.W.3d 550, 565 (Tex. 2018).
`
`ii.
`
`Plaintiffs cannot support a “specific” personal jurisdiction finding.
`
`Specific jurisdiction is also rooted in purposeful contacts with Texas, of which Mr.
`
`Kuljanac had none. Specific jurisdiction also requires proof of relatedness, that the contacts with
`
`the State of Texas are related to the cause of action. Plaintiffs have not identified any contacts
`
`that Mr. Kuljanac took in his personal capacity that gave rise to anyliabilities. Accordingly,this
`
`case against Mr, Kuljanac in his individual capacity should be dismissed.
`
`iii.
`
`Plaintiffs Cannot Establish Jurisdiction Over an Individual Based on Actions
`as a Corporation’s Agent.
`
`Mr. Kuljanac consistently acted in his capacity as an officer of GAI Investments and
`
`Management Group, LLC. The signed contracts referenced by Plaintiffs are all signed on behalf
`
`of GAl. The emails referenced by Plaintiffs are all sent by GAI. The meetings that were
`
`conducted wereall in the role ofthe individuals on behalf of their corporate parties, including
`
`GAI. In this case, the Plaintiffs are the corporations that signed the contacts, invested the funds,
`
`conducted business, and therefore now have claims sounding in contract and tort. But just as the
`
`
`
`individuals who operate each of the Plaintiff-corporations do not have individual claims, Mr.
`
`Kuljanac does not have individual liability.
`
`"|Jjurisdiction over an individual cannot be predicated upon jurisdiction over a
`
`corporation. That is to say, an individual's transaction of business within the state solely as an
`
`officer of a corporation does not create personal jurisdiction over that individual." Lehigh Valley
`
`Indus., Inc. v. Birenbaum, 389 F. Supp. 798, 803-04 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 527 F.2d 87 (2d Cir. 1975).
`
`In Clark v. Noyes, a Dallas case, the court said, “Generally, jurisdiction over an individual cannot
`
`be based upon jurisdiction over a corporation.” 871 S.W.2d 508, 518 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1994,
`
`no writ). In Clark, a nonresident medical doctor was sued by a Texas resident for negligence
`
`based on medical attention he received out of state. Id. at 518. The plaintiff claimed general
`
`jurisdiction existed over the doctor based on his ownership and position as an officer and director
`
`of a corporation that provided some medical supplies nationally. The trial court granted the
`
`doctor's special appearance and the appellate court affirmed its decision. Id. See also Garnerv.
`
`Furmanite Australia Pty, Lid, 966 S.W.2d 798 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet.
`
`denied).
`
`In Leon Ltd. v. Albuquerque Commons P'ship, the court observed the general rule that
`
`an individual’s contacts on behalf of a corporation do not create personal jurisdiction over the
`
`person. Leon Ltd. v. Albuquerque Commons P'ship, 862 S.W.2d 693, 708 (Tex. App.—El Paso
`
`1993, no writ).
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Plaintiffs have failed to plead any specific allegations against Karlo Kuljanac that create
`
`jurisdiction for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction over Mr. Kuljanac. In the absence of any
`
`facts justifying jurisdiction, Mr. Kuljanac respectfully requests that this Court dismiss Mr.
`
`Kuljanac from the proceeding.
`
`
`
`
` y
`
`Spectiully Subpfiitte
`
`Ataold A. Spencer “4
`Texas State Bar #00791709
`Spencer & Associates
`5956 Sherry Lane, Suite 2000
`Dallas, Texas 77225
`214-385-8500
`arnoldspencer75225@ymail.com
`Counsel for Karlo Kuljanac
`
`Certifi
`
`€ Servi
`
`I, Arnold Spencer, counsel! of record for Claimant Barbara Vital, do hereby certify that |
`have filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court via the ECF system, which sent notice
`to all counsel of record, in accordance with the Texas Rulesof Civil Procedure. |
`
` old A. Spencer
`
`Verification
`
`I, Karlo Kuljanac, declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and
`Remedies Code 132.001, that the statements in this Special Appearance are true and correct to
`the best of my knowledge andbelief.
`
`Executed in St. Petersburg, Floridaon July 9th_, 2024.
`
`,
`an Le b;
`ALOEjf
`
`Karlo Kuljanac
`
`
`
`Automated Certificate of eService
`This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
`The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
`on the date and to the personslisted below. The rules governing
`certificates of service have not changed. Filers muststill provide a
`certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
`
`Arnold Spencer on behalf of Arnold Spencer
`Bar No. 791709
`arnoldspencer/75225@gmail.com
`Envelope ID: 89653507
`Filing Code Description: Special Appearance
`Filing Description:
`Status as of 7/11/2024 8:53 AM CST
`
`Associated Case Party: JK CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC
`
`Gla
`Ia
`incor|YinromsSr[SRT
`Anthony M.Farmer po anthony@farmercoker.com
`
`Associated Case Party: CALCATERRA STREET GROUP, GP, LP
`
`Kyle A.Coker
`
`
`KYLE COKER po kyle@farrnercoker.com|7/10/2024 6:11:13 PM|SENT
`
`Case Contacts
`
` Arnold Spencer
`
`Steven Pham pO stevenphamesq@yahoo.com 7/10/2024 6:11:13 PM|SENT
`
`po arnoldspencer75225@gmail.com|7/10/2024 6:11:13 PM|SENT
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
