`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Fifth Circuit
`____________
`
`No. 23-20432
`Summary Calendar
`____________
`
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`Fifth Circuit
`
`FILED
`April 25, 2024
`
`Lyle W. Cayce
`Clerk
`
`Alejandro Evaristo Perez,
`
`
`
`
`versus
`
`Plaintiff—Appellant,
`
`
`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
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
