First court declined to apply the fiduciary shield doctrine. Id. (citing Calder, 465 U.S. at 790,104 S.Ct. at 1487). In a more recent case, however, that same court, applied the fiduciary shield doctrine to defeat general jurisdiction. Garner v. Furmanite Australia Pty., Ltd., 966 S.W.2d 798 (Tex.App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. denied). In Garner the First Court of Appeals found no general jurisdiction against an employee of a company because the fiduciary shield doctrine protects the employee from personal jurisdiction when the employee’s actions are on behalf of his employer. Id. at 803. The Gamer opinion cited to the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in Stuart v. Spademan, as its source for the fiduciary shield doctrine. Id. (citing Stuart v. Spademan, 772 F.2d 1185, 1197 (5th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>)). There are a few other Texas cases that
holding an alter ego action could be brought by the debtor corporation under texas law holding that alter ego is shown from the total dealings of the corporation holding jurisdiction over an individual may not usually be predicated on jurisdiction over a corporation unless the corporation is the alter ego of the individual or when the individual perpetrates a fraud recognizing that pursuant to the traditional application of the alter ego doctrine corporate form may be disregarded when the corporation is the mere instrumentality or business conduit of another corporation or person holding that individuals assumption of the role of president of the corporation and her authority to sign documents on behalf of the corporation demonstrate that she had the requisite control over the corporation for purposes of finding individual liability under section 5a