govinfo:USCOURTS-txed-4_23-cv-00435-0

1 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
SHERMAN DIVISION 
 
ALKIVIADES DAVID, ET AL. 
 
v. 
 
COMCAST INC., ET AL. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
CIVIL NO. 4:23-CV-435-SDJ 
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
Before the Court is Defendant s Comcast Inc. and Comcast Ventures, LLC ’s 
Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. #10). In their motion, brought under Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure 12(b)(2) and (b)(6), Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to 
plead sufficient facts to establish the Court’s personal jurisdiction over Defendants 
and fails to state a claim. (Dkt. #10). Because the Court concludes that sufficient facts 
have not been plea ded to establish personal jurisdiction over Defendants, the 
Rule 12(b)(2) motion will be granted. However, Plaintiffs will be permitted an 
opportunity to amend their complaint.1 
I. BACKGROUND 
Plaintiffs Alkiviades David, Filmon TV Ltd., Filmon TV Inc., Alki David 
Production Inc., Hologram USA, and Swiss X allege that Defendants Comcast Inc. 
and Comcast Ventures, LLC somehow censored Filmon TV Ltd. “from exposing early 
on the corrupt and racketeering conduct of associates to and of attorney Thomas 
Girardi and his wife Erica Jane Girardi [.]” (Dkt. #1 ¶ 12). Plaintiffs claim that this 
censoring “lessened streaming media competition ” and “inflame[d] the conditions of 
 
1 Because personal jurisdiction has not been established and dismissal under 
Rule 12(b)(2) is warranted, the Court need not address Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion. PageID #: 
<pageID>
2 
[Alkiviades David] under Legal Abuse Syndrome[ .]” (Dkt. #1 ¶¶ 13 –14). Based on 
these allegations, Plaintiffs bring federal and state antitrust claims, and a claim for 
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Dkt. #1 ¶¶ 17–21). 
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing, inter alia, that Plaintiffs have 
not pleaded sufficient facts to establish that the Court may exercise personal 
jurisdiction over Defendants. Specifically, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ 
complaint fails to include any allegation that Defendants’ affiliations with Texas are 
“so continuous and systematic as to render them essentially at home” in the State, 
and thus the complaint cannot support a finding that Defendants are subject to the 
exercise of general j urisdiction. See Frank v. P N K (Lake Charles) L.L.C. , 947 F.3d 
331, 336 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Defendants 
further contend that Plaintiffs’ complaint also fails to include any non- conclusory 
allegation that would allow the Court to exercise specific jurisdiction over Defendants 
concerning the claims asserted. 
II. L
EGAL STANDARD 
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) allows a party to raise the defense that 
a court lacks personal jurisdiction. The Court ’s jurisdiction over a defendant is 
constrained by due process. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz , 471 U.S. 462, 
471–72, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). To pursue a lawsuit against a 
defendant, a plaintiff must therefore establish that the defendant maintains 
adequate contacts with the forum state such that haling him to the State to defend 
himself would be “reasonable” and would “not offend traditional notions of fair play PageID #: 
<pageID>
3 
and substantial justice.” Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351, 
358, 141 S.Ct. 1017, 209 L.Ed.2d 225 (2021) (quoting Int ’l Shoe Co. v. Washington , 
326 U.S. 310, 316–17, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945)). 
“Personal jurisdiction over a defendant can be established under two general 
theories—either general jurisdiction, which refers to the Court ’s ‘all-purpose’ 
jurisdiction over defendants that are essentially at home in the forum state ; or 
specific jurisdiction, which refers to ‘ case-linked’ jurisdiction arising from a 
defendant’s activities directed toward the forum state. ” Select Rsch., Ltd. v. 
Amazon.com, Inc., No. 4:23-CV-865-SDJ, 2024 WL 3585106, at *2 (E.D. Tex. July 30, 
2024) (quotation omitted). 
General jurisdiction exists when the defendant’s contacts with the forum state 
are “so continuous and systematic as to render [the defendant] essentially at home in 
the forum State.” Daimler AG v. Bauman , 571 U.S. 117, 139, 134 S.Ct. 746, 
187 L.Ed.2d 624 (2014) (cleaned up). In general, “a corporation ’s ‘home’ falls in two 
paradigmatic places: (1) the state of incorporation and (2) the state where it has its 
principal place of business.” P N K, 947 F.3d at 337. 
“Specific jurisdiction arises when the defendant’s contacts with the forum arise 
from, or are directly related to, the cause of action.” Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467, 470 
(5th Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted). The Court evaluates specific jurisdiction using a 
“three-step” procedure. Admar Int’l, Inc. v. Eastrock, L.L.C. , 18 F.4th 783, 786 
(5th Cir. 2021) . First, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant has 
minimum contacts with the forum state —meaning that the defendant purposely PageID #: 
<pageID>
4 
directed his activities at the forum state and availed himself of the privilege of doing 
business in the State. Id. Second, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the asserted 
causes of action arise out of, or relate to, the defendant ’s contacts with the forum 
state. Id. Third, after the plaintiff has established the first two requirements, the 
burden shifts to the defendant to prove that maintaining a lawsuit in the forum state 
would be either “unfair” or “unreasonable.” Id. 
Although the burden rests with the plaintiff to establish the core elements of 
personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff can satisfy that burden at the pleading stage by 
simply presenting a prima facie case for jurisdiction. Walk Haydel & Assocs., Inc. v. 
Coastal Power Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 235, 241 (5th Cir. 2008). 
III. D
ISCUSSION 
Plaintiffs have failed to present a prima facie case establishing the Court’s 
personal jurisdiction over Defendants. In this regard, a lthough the Court’s inquiry is 
focused on Plaintiffs’ complaint, it is notable that, in their response to Defendants’ 
Rule 12(b)(2) motion, Plaintiffs offer no facts or legal arguments that would support 
the Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendants. See (Dkt. #14). 
 To be sure, Plaintiffs have alleged their own ties to Texas. For example, 
Plaintiff SwissX is based in T exas. (Dkt. #1 ¶ 6). They also allege that Defendants’ 
censoring activities impacted Plaintiffs’ Texas customer base and their ability to 
conduct trade and business in Texas. (Dkt. #1 ¶¶ 14, 16) . But it is Defendants’ 
contacts with Texas —not Plaintiffs’—that matter when considering personal 
jurisdiction. PageID #: 
<pageID>
5 
 For general jurisdiction, there are no factual allegations that Defendants are 
either incorporated or have their principal place s of business in Texas. In fact , 
Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendants are headquartered outside Texas. (Dkt. #1 
¶¶ 7–10); see Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 92–95, 130 S.Ct. 1181, 175 L.Ed.2d 
1029 (2010) (holding that a corporation’s headquarters is typically its principal place 
of business). Plaintiffs also have not alleged where either Defendant is incorporated. 
For specific jurisdiction, Plaintiffs have not alleged that Defendants have any 
places of business in Texas, sell any products or services in Texas, conduct any 
business in Texas, or have any presence in Texas outside of Defendant Comcast Inc.’s 
registered agent. Without more, the Court lacks specific jurisdiction over Defendants. 
As to Defendant Comcast Inc.’s registered agent in Texas: On its own , a 
registered agent is not enough to establish general jurisdiction. Wenche Siemer v. 
Learjet Acquisition Corp., 966 F.2d 179, 183 (5th Cir. 1992) (“A registered agent, from 
any conceivable perspective, hardly amounts to ‘the general business presence’ of a 
corporation so as to sustain an assertion of general jurisdiction.”). 
Likewise, “[s]ervice on a designated agent alone does not establish minimum 
contact” for specific jurisdiction. See Leonard v. USA Petroleum Corp. , 829 F.Supp. 
882, 889 (S.D. Tex. 1993) (citing Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 
444–48, 72 S.Ct. 413, 96 L.Ed. 485 (1952)). 
 Because the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient facts to 
establish either general or specific jurisdiction over Defendants, the Court must 
dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. PageID #: 
<pageID>
6 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Comcast Inc. and Comcast Ventures, 
LLC’s Motion to Dismiss , (Dkt. #10), is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ claims against 
Defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 
Procedure 12(b)(2). 
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint on or 
before July 30, 2026. Failure to amend the complaint by the required time will result 
in dismissal of the case. PageID #: 
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight