LIT COMMENTARY
Magistrate Judge Sam Sheldon and Judge Keith Ellison knew exactly what they were doing when dismissing pro se’s case WITH PREJUDICE to refiling. Example orders and other M&R’s confirm this was a setup. See;
Philip v. Tex. Mut. Ins. Co., Civil Action 4:21-CV-3364, at *6 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2022)
(“ Therefore, this Court does not recommend that Plaintiff be given leave to amend her complaint by providing a more definite statement because the Court lacks necessary jurisdiction. V. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE”),
case before Judge Keith Ellison, signed by Magistrate Judge Sam Sheldon;
Zawislak v. Mem’l Hermann Health Sys., Civil Action 4:21-CV-3098, at *5 (S.D. Tex. July 25, 2022)
(“This action should be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Mitchell v. Bailey, 982 F.3d 937, 944 (5th Cir. 2020) (explaining dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be without prejudice).”)
case before Judge Keith Ellison, signed by Magistrate Judge Sam Sheldon;
Galbearth-Robair v. U.S. Equal Opportunity Comm’n, CIVIL ACTION No. 4:19cv4797, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2021)
(“It is therefore ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation is hereby ADOPTED by this Court. This is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”),
signed by Senior Judge Sim Lake, Magistrate Judge Christina Bryan;
Normandie Oz, LLC v. Interra-Sky Normandie, LLC, CIVIL ACTION No. H-20-1069, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 16, 2021)
(“This case is dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.”)
signed by then Chief Judge Lee Rosenthal;
This district federal court decides cases on personal vendettas and does not apply the laws and rules uniformly, mainly discriminating against self-represented, pro se litigants before the court.
Perez v. Walt Disney (5th Cir, Unpub.)
ON LIT (PUBLISHED)
APR 26, 2023 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: APR 27, 2023
Judge Keith Ellison reversed to the extent that it dismisses “with prejudice” and remand with instructions to dismiss “without prejudice”.
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, 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 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.
* 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.
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.”
Join LIT. Be Heard. Speak Out against Ochlocracy.
Donate if you value Free Speech and Truly Independent Investigative Journalism. No Bull. Just the Truth. https://t.co/JNHI8vkkGj pic.twitter.com/NSy6dXD8Zx— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) April 19, 2023
MAR 9, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: APR 28, 2023
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant The Walt Disney Company (“TWDC”). (Doc. 7.)
This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Sam Sheldon in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Cost and Delay Reduction Plan under the Civil Justice Reform Act, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. (Doc. 18.)
On November 15, 2021, Judge Sheldon issued a Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R), recommending that TWDC’s Motion to Dismiss be granted. (Doc. 42).
Plaintiff filed his objections on November 26, 2021. (Doc. 43.) TWDC filed its response on December 10, 2021. (Doc. 45.)
Plaintiff filed his reply in support of his objections on December 15, 2021. (Doc. 48.)
The case was reassigned to this Court after Judge Eskridge’s recusal on January 24, 2022.
The Court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s objections on February 8, 2022.
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of the portions of the M&R to which Plaintiff has objected.
However, the Court agrees with the conclusions, and the reasoning, of the M&R. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the M&R in full. It is therefore ORDERED that:
(1) Plaintiff’s objections to the M&R (Doc. 43) are OVERRULED;
(2) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7) is GRANTED;
(3) the case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
and
(4) all other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this the 9th day of February, 2022.
KEITH P. ELLISON
UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE
ORDER: Plaintiffs 6 request for CM/ECF access is denied. Any filings by Plaintiff will be deemed timely if postmarked on or before the due date.
(Signed by Magistrate Judge Sam S Sheldon) Parties notified.(sjones, 4) (Entered: 04/05/2021)
Judge Shopping in Texas Joined by Circuit Shopping at the Fifth Circuit Now Under Supreme Court Scrutiny
Nearly a quarter of the cases—23.4%—the Supreme Court has targeted for review this term so far come from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
CA8: Clerks Serve to File Cases, Not Participate as Adversaries in Those Disputes
As Chief Justice Marshall colorfully put it, to decline the exercise of jurisdiction is tantamount to treason to the Constitution.
A Fifth Circuit Clerk Corruptly Impersonating Appellants Induces Finality of Appeal
Fifth Circuit Clerk Gardner, with knowledge and in bad faith, entered her own fraudulent Motion upon which the 5th Cir. entered its judgment.
