Castro v. Georgetown University et al
Filing
19
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Because Castro has failed to allege a basis for this Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants, Defendants' 13 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Ordered by Chief Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn on 8/14/2018) (ykp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO,
Plaintiff,
v.
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY and NAN
HUNTER,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-645-M
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13), filed by Defendants Georgetown
University and Nan Hunter. After consideration, the Motion is GRANTED.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff John Anthony Castro, a Hispanic man, was a law student at Georgetown
University, in Washington, D.C. (1st Am. Compl, ECF No. 11 at ¶¶ 5, 6, 8). While Castro was
enrolled, the University allegedly learned that Castro had mischaracterized information on his
résumé and considered expelling him, but the University ultimately did not do so. (Id. at ¶¶ 9–
19).
After graduating from Georgetown, Castro moved to Dallas, Texas to start an
international tax practice. (Id. at ¶¶ 4, 20). At some unidentified date, Castro alleges he applied
for his firm to attend Georgetown’s “Taxation Interview Program” to interview graduates of
Georgetown’s Master of Laws in Taxation program. (Id. at ¶ 20). The law school denied
Castro’s application. (Id. at ¶ 21). Castro placed a phone call to the law school to ask why his
application was denied, and he was allegedly told that Defendant Hunter, an associate dean at the
law school, did not want him to participate. (Id. at ¶¶ 5, 21).
-1-
On March 19, 2018, Castro filed this lawsuit, asserting claims against Defendants for
discrimination, retaliation, and tortious interference with prospective business relations. (ECF
No. 1).
On May 14, 2018, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that this Court lacks
personal jurisdiction over Defendants, and that Castro failed to allege a plausible claim for relief.
(ECF No. 13). Castro filed no response to the Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 18).
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
If a court lacks personal jurisdiction, it cannot adjudicate the merits of the asserted
claims. Pervasive Software Inc. v. Lexware GmbH & Co. KG, 688 F.3d 214, 231–32 (5th Cir.
2012) (affirming district court’s decision to dismiss case for lack of personal jurisdiction, without
separately ruling on the defendant’s pending Rule 12(b)(6) arguments).
Castro has the burden to establish a prima facie case that Defendants are subject to
personal jurisdiction in Texas. Sangha v. Navig8 ShipManagement Private Ltd., 882 F.3d 96,
101 (5th Cir. 2018). Personal jurisdiction may be exercised over a defendant when a state’s
long-arm statute authorizes service of process, and the assertion of jurisdiction would be
consistent with the requirements of due process. Pervasive Software, 688 F.3d at 220. Because
the Texas long-arm statute is coextensive with the limits of due process, the Court need only
analyze whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction would violate due process. See Purcel v.
Advanced Bionics Holding Corp., No. 3:07-CV-1777-M, 2008 WL 4790998, at *1 (N.D. Tex.
2008). Due process requirements are satisfied if the non-resident defendant has “certain
minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Int’l Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., Office of
Unemployment Comp. & Placement, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (internal quotations omitted).
-2-
Two types of minimum contacts support jurisdiction over a defendant: contacts that give
rise to general personal jurisdiction and contacts supporting specific personal jurisdiction. See
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 418 (1984). A court may
exercise general jurisdiction over a defendant entity only if the entity’s “affiliations with the
State in which suit is brought are so constant and pervasive ‘as to render [the defendant] at home
in the forum State.’” Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 751 (2014) (quoting Goodyear
Dunlop Tires Ops., S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011)); see New World Int’l, Inc. v. Ford
Glob. Techs., LLC, No. 3:15-CV-01121-M, 2016 WL 1069675, at *3 (N.D. Tex. 2016) (Lynn,
J.). To satisfy this standard, the entity must be incorporated in the state, headquartered in the
state, or have some other equivalent presence in the state. BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, 137 S. Ct.
1549, 1553 (2017).
For specific jurisdiction, a plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant purposefully
directed his activities at residents in the forum, (2) the litigation results from alleged injuries that
arise from or relate to the defendant’s activities in the forum, and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction
will comport with “fair play or substantial justice.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S.
462, 472 (1985) (citing Int’l Shoe, 326 U.S. 310). A defendant’s isolated or occasional activities
in the forum are insufficient to establish jurisdiction if the “nature and quality and the
circumstances” of those activities establish only an attenuated affiliation with the forum. Id. at
475–76 n.18. The mere fortuity that a plaintiff happens to be a resident of the forum is not
enough to support specific jurisdiction. Panda Brandywine Corp. v. Potomac Elec. Power Co.,
253 F.3d 865, 870 (5th Cir. 2001).
III.
ANALYSIS
Because Plaintiff chose not to respond to the Motion to Dismiss, the Court must judge the
issue of jurisdiction by analyzing the Complaint. General jurisdiction over Defendants is lacking
-3-
in this case. Both Defendants are located in Washington, D.C. (ECF No. 11 at ¶¶ 5,6). Castro
does not allege that either Defendant has any other connection with Texas. Thus, Castro has not
shown that either Defendant is “at home” in Texas, and general jurisdiction over Defendants
does not exist. See My Fabric Designs, Inc. v. F+W Media, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-2112-L, 2018
WL 1138436, at *8 (N.D. Tex. 2018).
Castro also has not set forth a basis for this Court to exercise specific jurisdiction over
Defendants. Defendants’ only alleged contact with Texas is that Castro, a Texas resident, placed
a phone call, on an unidentified date, to Georgetown University’s Career Services Office. (ECF
No. 11 at ¶ 21). This single contact is not evidence that Defendants purposefully directed any
activities to Texas. Nothing about this communication shows that Defendants took any action in
or directed to Texas that gives rise to this lawsuit, so as to purposely avail themselves of the
benefits of doing business in Texas. See Moncrief Oil Int’l Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, 481 F.3d 309,
313 (5th Cir. 2007); Tornado Bus Co. v. Bus & Coach Am. Corp., No. 3:14-CV-3231-M, 2014
WL 7333873, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2014).
The Court therefore concludes that it lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Because Castro has failed to allege a basis for this Court to exercise personal jurisdiction
over Defendants, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.
August 14, 2018.
_________________________________
BARBARA M. G. LYNN
CHIEF JUDGE
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?