Court Opinion

ID: 9963650
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-26 00:00:51.528192+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:55.406311
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20432   Document: 41-1     Page: 1    Date Filed: 04/25/2024

      United States Court of Appeals
           for the Fifth Circuit                             United States Court of Appeals
                         ____________                                 Fifth Circuit

                                                                    FILED
                          No. 23-20432                          April 25, 2024
                        Summary Calendar                       Lyle W. Cayce
                        ____________                                Clerk

Alejandro Evaristo Perez,

                                                  Plaintiff—Appellant,

                               versus

Disney Corporation; Walt Disney Company; Disney
Enterprises, Incorporated; Disney ABC Incorporated;
Disney Store USA, L.L.C.; Disney/ABC International
Television, Incorporated, doing business as Disney - ABC
International Television; Buena Vista Television,
L.L.C., doing business as Disney - ABC Domestic Television;
Magical Cruise Company, Limited, doing business as Disney
Cruise Lines (DCL); Buena Vista Theatrical Group,
Limited, doing business as Disney Theatrical Group,

                                     Defendants—Appellees.
            ______________________________

            Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Southern District of Texas
                      USDC No. 4:21-CV-765
            ______________________________
Case: 23-20432             Document: 41-1         Page: 2      Date Filed: 04/25/2024

                                        No. 23-20432

Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit
Judges.
Per Curiam:*
        Alejandro Evaristo Perez filed a pro se civil fourth amended complaint
against numerous defendants, referred to collectively as Disney.                    The
complaint alleged that Disney violated the copyright laws, intentionally
inflicted emotional distress (IIED), and engaged in restraint of trade. Disney
filed a motion to dismiss the fourth amended complaint under Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and (6), among other things. Disney also filed a
motion to stay all responsive deadlines and additional substantive motions
pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. The district court granted the
stay.
        Following a hearing, the district court granted Disney’s motion to
dismiss. The district court found that, except for Disney ABC Incorporated
(Disney ABC), Perez had again failed to allege any contacts between the
defendants listed in the fourth amended complaint and the State Texas and
dismissed the complaint against them without prejudice for lack of personal
jurisdiction. With respect to Disney ABC, the district court found that Perez
had failed to allege claims on which relief can be granted for copyright
infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 106A, for IIED, and for conspiracy to restrain
trade under 15 U.S.C. § 1. The district court dismissed these claims against
Disney ABC with prejudice.
        A district court’s dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction is reviewed
de novo. Panda Brandywine Corp. v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 253 F.3d 865,
867 (5th Cir. 2001). “The burden of establishing personal jurisdiction over
a non-resident defendant lies with the plaintiff.” In re Chinese-Manufactured
        _____________________
        *
            This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

                                              2
Case: 23-20432         Document: 41-1       Page: 3    Date Filed: 04/25/2024

                                   No. 23-20432

Drywall Prods. Liab. Litig., 753 F.3d 521, 529 (5th Cir. 2014) (internal
quotation marks, citation, and emphasis omitted). The district court was not
clearly erroneous in the factual finding that the relevant defendants had
insufficient contacts with Texas and committed no error in dismissing this
portion of Perez’s complaint without prejudice for lack of personal
jurisdiction. See Pervasive Software, Inc. v. Lexware GmbH & Co. KG, 688
F.3d 214, 219-20 (5th Cir. 2012).
         A party may move to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A plaintiff
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted when the claim does not
contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). We review a district
court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) de
novo. In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007).
The district court did not err in finding that none of the claims against Disney
ABC were facially plausible. See Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. at 570.
         Perez has not shown that the district court acted in a biased and unjust
way by staying proceedings pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss
and denying his motion for summary judgment as moot. Judicial rulings
alone almost never are a valid basis for a claim of bias. Liteky v. United States,
510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994); Andrade v. Chojnacki, 338 F.3d 448, 455 (5th Cir.
2003).
         The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                        3