Legal Question in Administrative Law in Texas

Re: Can someone in Texas sue & force someone in another state to come to court?

The question you ask raises one of the most important and fundamental issues of U.S. law, which is when may the courts of a state exert personal jurisdiction over the citizens of another U.S. state.

There is a long line of U.S. Supreme Court cases on this major legal topic, and the question is very well settled law. Even so, the facts of each case that might combine to give the court jurisdiction over a dispute need to be analyzed and tested on a case-by-case basis.

The basic rule is that (for example) if X, a citizen of California, does a sufficient volume of business in Texas, or has a sufficient "presence" in Texas, it is reasonable and not a violation of "due process" for that person to be haled into court in Texas to answer for alleged misdeeds. Now, this rule has plenty of corollaries that apply to specific situations or specific legal issues, e.g., contract cases, torts such as negligence, etc.

In a contract case (the purchase of a business or the placing of advertising would be contract matters), jurisdiction may be had in the courts of any state (a) where the contract was negotiated and signed, (b) where the contract was to be performed, or (c) where the defendant lives. There might be other possibilities. If the plaintiffs can show that the contract sued upon was to be performed in Texas, the Texas state courts may be able to assert jurisdiction.

Now, as to the merits of the case. If you were sued in Texas, and duly served, you would have the choice of defending in Texas or objecting to the Texas court's jurisdiction by filing a motion denying their jurisdiction, probably a "motion to quash service of process," and the Texas court would have to decide it's own jurisdiction. No court needs more case load, so there is a tendency not to accept jurisdiction in close cases.

If the court found it had jurisdiction because there were adequate ties to Texas to make suit in Texas expectable, the case would proceed on its merits. It sounds as though you might win, thus I'm guessing the plaintiff is assuming you'll fail to defend and thus lose by default.