Court Opinion

ID: 9390007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 18:00:49.91055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:31.079102
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20084         Document: 00516726792             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/26/2023

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

                                       No. 22-20084
                                                                                       FILED
                                                                                   April 26, 2023
                                      ____________
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   Alejandro Evaristo Perez,                                                           Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   The Walt Disney Company,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 4:21-CV-765
                      ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Plaintiff-Appellant Alejandro Evaristo Perez, proceeding pro se, 1 sued
   “Disney Corporation,” a nonexistent entity, in the United States District
   Court for the Southern District of Texas. According to Perez, the “Disney
   Corporation” violated federal copyright and antitrust laws by interfering
   with his relationship with non-party “Amazon Corporation.” Specifically,
          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
          1
           The Latin term “pro se” means “for oneself, on one’s own behalf.” Thus, a party
   proceeds pro se when he or she is not represented by an attorney.
Case: 22-20084      Document: 00516726792           Page: 2     Date Filed: 04/26/2023

                                     No. 22-20084

   Perez contends that “Disney Corporation” “misguided” Amazon to stop
   selling his paperback novel, entitled “The Real Lord Vader-the Destroyer of
   Start Wars.”
          Because “Disney Corporation” does not exist, The Walt Disney
   Company (“TWDC”), as the parent holding company for various Disney-
   affiliated entities, appeared for the purpose of filing a motion seeking
   dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction and lack of capacity. 2 Concluding
   Perez’s allegations did not identify sufficient contacts between TWDC and
   the State of Texas to support general or specific personal jurisdiction, the
   district court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice.
          On appeal, Perez’s arguments, even construed liberally given his pro
   se status, identify no reversible error in the district court’s personal
   jurisdiction assessment. Although Perez reiterates the existence of “Disney”
   stores and various Disney-affiliated events in Texas, a subsidiary’s contacts
   with the forum state generally are not imputed to a parent company if the
   subsidiary is operated as a distinct corporation. See Frank v. PNK (Lake
   Charles) L.L.C., 947 F.3d 331, 338 (5th Cir. 2020) (this court generally does
   not impute contacts across parents and subsidiaries for jurisdictional
   purposes) (citing Southmark Corp. v. Life Investors, Inc., 851 F.2d 763, 773–75
   (5th Cir. 1988)). Perez’s vague “Disney” references fall far short of
   demonstrating that an exception to this general principle applies here. And
   Perez’s remaining assertions—complaints about the district court’s docket
   management—reveal no abuse of discretion.
           Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s ruling that it lacks personal
   jurisdiction over TWDC. However, because a dismissal “for lack of

          _____________________
          2 Perez’s April 1, 2021 response to TWDC’s motion to dismiss identifies the
   defendant as “Disney Corporation; AKA The Walt Disney Company Corporation.”

                                               2
Case: 22-20084      Document: 00516726792          Page: 3    Date Filed: 04/26/2023

                                    No. 22-20084

   jurisdiction” is not an “adjudication on the merits,” the dismissal ordered
   by the district court should have been without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ.
   P. 41(b); ITL Int’l, Inc. v. Cafe Soluble, S.A., 464 F. App’x 241, 244 (5th Cir.
   2012) (unpub.) (citing Am. Realty Tr., Inc. v. Hamilton Lane Advisors, Inc., 115
   F. App’x 662, 667 (5th Cir. 2004) (unpub.)). We therefore reverse the
   district court’s February 9, 2022 order to the extent that it dismisses “with
   prejudice” and remand with instructions to amend the order to specify that
   dismissal is “without prejudice.”
       AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.

                                              3