purposes of service of process. 9 . Gonzalez v. Fresenius Med. Care AT. Am., 689 F.3d 470, 474 (5th Cir.2012). 10 . Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a). 11 . Gonzalez, 689 F.3d at 474-75 (internal quotation marks omitted). 12 . Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. City of Mont Belvieu, 611 F.3d 289, 295 (5th Cir.2010) (citing Nagle v. Nagle, 633 S.W.2d 796, 800 (Tex.1982)). 13 . Fretz Constr. Co. v. S. Nat. Bank of Hous., 626 S.W.2d 478, 483 (Tex. 1981); Allied Vista, Inc. v. Holt, 987 S.W.2d 138, 142 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. denied) ("[I]n a claim for promissory estoppel, only reliance damages are allowed.”). 14 . Bechtel Corp. v. CITGO Prods. Pipeline Co., 271 S.W.3d 898, 926 (Tex.App.-Austin 2008, no pet.). 15 . Id. at 927. 16 . See Conner v. Lavaca Hosp. Dist., 267 F.3d 426, 436 (5th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). 17 . Bechtel Corp., 271 S.W.3d at 928 ("Such
holding in the context of a non  212c iirira retroactivity challenge that if reliance were required we would insist at most upon objectively reasonable reliance and not subjective reliance holding that there could be no reasonable reliance on original contract following its repudiation holding that under ohio law fraud claim failed because there was no evidence of reliance holding that reasonable reliance is not an element of the defense holding that plaintiff failed to prove reasonable reliance on a false statement