the damages caused by their conduct and actions described above in a sum exceeding $2,000,000, plus pre- and post-Judgment interest.” Thus, Plaintiffs allege that one of the objects of the fraud perpetrated against them was for Defendants to obtain Simply Goodies’ assets. One of the ways in which this object was accomplished was by depriving Plaintiffs of notice of the foreclosure sale. Although part of the trial will focus on the events that occurred at the Property in Mexico, the part of the trial that concerns Casas Gran des will focus on its purchase of Simply Goodies’ assets. Because Casas Grandes’ contacts with Texas relate to these assets, there is a substantial connection between the forum contacts and the operative facts of Plaintiffs’ claims. See Retamco, 278 S.W.3d at 340-41 (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, the generic damages paragraph,
holding that the plaintiffs mere failure to execute on a judgment the only allegedly fraudulent act is not fraudulent concealment holding that a defendants acceptance in california of an assignment of oil and gas leases was a contact with texas for personaljurisdiction purposes because the assignment was of real property interests located in texas even though the defendant never physically entered texas holding that court lacked jurisdiction to restrain property allegedly involved in fraudulent transfer until question of title holder had been resolved holding that a plaintiff who has not sustained any damage as the result of a transfer of property cannot seek to set that transfer aside as fraudulent holding that suit arose from alleged fraudulent transfer of real property located in texas even though the allegedly fraudulent assignment occurred in california