Gibbs v. Williams et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
BASIL CLARK GIBBS, ex rel.
BASIL GIBBS,
Plaintiff,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
v. 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-cv-4545
CATHERINE DIANN WILLIAMS,
ET AL.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending 	before 	the 	Court 1 is 	Defendants 	Denny’s 	Corporation 	and
Denny’s Inc.’s (collectively, “Denny’s Entities”) Motion to Dismiss (ECF No.
15). Based on a review of the motion, arguments, and relevant law, the Court
RECOMMENDS Denny’s Entities’ Motion to Dismiss (id.) be GRANTED.
I. 	Background2
This case 	arises out of a “domestic 	disturbance” 	that occurred 	at a
Denny’s restaurant on September 23, 2024. 	(ECF No. 1 at ¶ 17). 	Pro se
Plaintiff 	Basil 	Clark Gibbs, 	ex 	rel. 	BASIL GIBBS 	(“Plaintiff”) 	alleges he
entered the restaurant at approximately 1:26 p.m., seated himself, and waited
1 This case was referred to the Undersigned for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. (ECF No. 31).
2 “When considering a motion to dismiss, the court accepts as true the well-pled
factual allegations in the complaint, and construes them in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff.” Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 2002).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 27, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-04545 Document 40 Filed 07/27/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 10

2
for waitstaff 	to take his food 	order. 	(Id. 	at ¶¶ 18–19). 	Plaintiff 	alleges
Defendant 	Catherine 	Williams 	(“Williams”) 	initially 	brought 	Plaintiff 	a
complimentary coffee. 	(Id. at ¶ 20). 	However, Plaintiff then alleges he was
ignored for approximately two hours whenever he attempted to order food. (Id.
at ¶ 21). Plaintiff alleges that a “crowd of people” entered the restaurant, and
waitstaff told Plaintiff he had to leave. (Id. at ¶ 23). 	Plaintiff alleges he told
the waitstaff 	that he believed he was being racially profiled. 	(Id. at ¶ 25).
Waitstaff then allegedly threatened to call police. 	(Id.). 	Plaintiff alleges he
waited for police to arrive so that he could give a statement as to the waitstaff’s
racially discriminatory actions. 	(Id. at ¶ 26).
A police officer allegedly arrived on the scene and took a statement from
Williams, who believed Plaintiff was homeless. 	(Id. at ¶ 28). Plaintiff alleges
the police officer provided Plaintiff with an information card and case number,
which identified Plaintiff as “the offender.” 	(Id. at ¶ 32). Plaintiff then alleges
he “left the scene without any other issues.” 	(Id. at ¶ 33).
On September 	22, 2025, Plaintiff 	filed a complaint 	against 	Denny’s
Entities, Williams, and Does 1 through 10. 	(Id. at ¶ 1). 	The Complaint
contains two causes of action against all Defendants: (1) “denial of right to
contract” 	in 	violation 	of 	42 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1981 	and 	(2) 	denial 	of 	public
accommodation 	in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000a. 	(Id. at ¶¶ 35–67). 	On
Case 4:25-cv-04545 Document 40 Filed 07/27/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 10

3
November 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed a supplement to his Complaint to add as
defendants “Yasmin, Inc. doing business as Denny’s Number 7037” and “Abdul
Amir Madani”. 	(ECF No. 11).
On December 31, 2025, Denny’s Entities filed the instant 	Motion to
Dismiss. 	(ECF No. 15).
II. 	Legal Standard
Dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction is governed by Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(2). 	Fintech Fund, FLP v. Horne, 327 F. Supp. 3d
1007, 1016 (S.D. Tex. 2018), aff’d sub nom. Fintech Fund, F.L.P. v. Horne, 836
F. 	App’x 	215 	(5th 	Cir. 	2020). 	When 	a 	defendant 	challenges 	personal
jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the district court’s
jurisdiction over the defendant by prima facie evidence. 	Frank v. P N K (Lake
Charles) L.L.C., 947 F.3d 331, 336 (5th Cir. 2020). 	The court determines
whether 	plaintiff 	has 	met 	this 	prima 	facie 	burden 	by 	considering 	the
allegations in the complaint as well as the contents of the record at the time of
the motion. 	Id.; Fintech Fund, 327 F. Supp. 3d at 1016. However, the court is
not required to credit conclusory allegations, even if uncontroverted. 	Panda
Brandywine Corp. v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 253 F.3d 865, 869 (5th Cir.
2001). 	If the plaintiff 	meets the prima facie burden, the burden shifts to
defendant to show that the assertion of jurisdiction would be unfair. 	Walk
Case 4:25-cv-04545 Document 40 Filed 07/27/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 10

4
Haydel & Assocs., Inc. v. Coastal Power Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 235, 245 (5th Cir.
2008).
III. 	Discussion
Denny’s 	Entities 	argue 	Plaintiff’s 	Complaint 	should 	be 	dismissed
because (1) it fails to state a plausible claim for relief under Rule 12(b)(6) and
(2) the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Denny’s Entities. (ECF No. 15 at
6–13). 	The Court will address the personal jurisdiction argument first. 	See
Robertson v. Grey Ventures, LLC, 802 F. Supp. 3d 972, 975 (N.D. Miss. 2025)
(“In choosing to address the jurisdictional issues in this case first, this court is
following well-settled precedent that courts should first consider whether they
have jurisdiction over a case before considering its merits.”).
a. Personal Jurisdiction
“Personal jurisdiction in federal court is governed by the law of the state
in which the federal court sits.” 	Bulkley v. Associates, L.L.C. v. Dep’t of Indus.
Relations, 1 F.4th 346, 351 (5th Cir. 2021). In Texas, courts employ a two-step
inquiry 	to 	evaluate 	personal 	jurisdiction 	over 	nonresident 	defendants 	by
“ensuring compliance with the state’s long-arm statute and the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” 	Id. 	Because the Texas long-arm
statute 	is coextensive with the limits of federal due process, 	the two-step
inquiry “collapses into one federal due process analysis.” 	Id.
Case 4:25-cv-04545 Document 40 Filed 07/27/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 10

5
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 	Amendment permits 	the
exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant when (1) the
defendant has “purposefully availed himself of the benefits and protections of
the forum by establishing ‘minimum contacts’ with the forum state,” and (2)
the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant aligns with “traditional
notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB,
205 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 2000); see also Int’l Shoe Co v. Washington, 326 U.S.
310, 316 (1945). 	Both prongs of the due process test must be fulfilled for this
court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant.
The first prong of the due process analysis, referred to as the “minimum
contacts” requirement, may be satisfied if either: (1) the controversy is “related
to” or “arises out of” the nonresident defendant’s 	contacts with the forum
(specific 	jurisdiction), or (2) the defendant has “continuous and systematic”
contacts with the forum (general jurisdiction). 	Alpine View, 205 F.3d at 215;
see also Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 413–
17 (1984).
Under the second prong of the due process analysis, the “fundamental
fairness” requirement, a court considers several factors to decide whether the
exercise 	of 	jurisdiction 	comports 	with 	traditional 	notions of 	fairness 	and
substantial justice. 	The factors to be examined include: (1) the burden on the
Case 4:25-cv-04545 Document 40 Filed 07/27/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 10

6
nonresident defendant to defend itself in the forum; (2) the interests of the
forum state; (3) the plaintiff’s interest in convenient and effective relief; (4) the
judicial system’s interest in efficient resolution of controversies; and (5) the
states’ shared interest in furthering fundamental social policies. 	Luv N’ care,
Ltd. v. Insta-Mix, Inc., 438 F.3d 465, 473 (5th Cir. 2006).
i. 	Specific Jurisdiction
A 	court 	may 	exercise 	specific 	jurisdiction 	when 	the 	“nonresident
defendant’s contacts with the forum state arise from, or are directly related to,
the cause of action.” Gundle Lining Constr. Corp. v. Adams Cnty. Asphalt, Inc.,
85 F.3d 201, 205 (5th Cir. 1996). 	“Even a single contact can support specific
jurisdiction 	if 	the defendant 	‘purposefully 	avails itself 	of 	the 	privilege of
conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and
protections of its laws.’” 	Litvinov v. Bowtech, Inc., 701 F. Supp. 3d 618, 622
(S.D. Tex. 2023) (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475
(1985)). 	“The non-resident’s ‘purposeful 	availment’ must be such that the
defendant ‘should reasonably anticipate being haled into court’ in the forum
state.” 	Ruston Gas Turbines, Inc. v. Donaldson Co., Inc., 9 F.3d 415, 419 (5th
Cir. 1993) (citing World-Wide Volkswagen Corp v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297
(1980)).
Case 4:25-cv-04545 Document 40 Filed 07/27/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 10

7
Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not allege the Denny’s Entities took any
action in the underlying case. In fact, Plaintiff’s factual allegations do not even
mention the Denny’s Entities. 	(See ECF No. 1 at 4–6). 	Instead, it appears
Plaintiff is attempting to hold the Denny’s Entities liable “through the conduct”
of Williams. 	(See id. at 7). Plaintiff’s Complaint makes no allegation that the
Denny’s Entities are doing business in Texas or availing themselves of Texas
laws. 	The Denny’s Entities argue as such in their Motion to Dismiss, stating
that “Plaintiff’s claims stem from the alleged mistreatment by employees at
the Katy Restaurant on a particular day” and that “[t]hose 	events have no
causal or substantive connection to any purposeful conduct” by the Denny’s
Entities in Texas.3 (ECF No. 15 at 11). The Court agrees. See Lane v. Baywood
Hotels, Inc., No. 25-cv-103, 2025 WL 2419727, at *6 (E.D. La. Aug. 21, 2025)
(“The Hotel employee’s alleged discriminatory conduct toward Lane is simply
too attenuated from Hilton’s policies and its contractual relationship with the
Hotel’s franchisee to confer personal jurisdiction.); see also Ford Motor Co. v.
Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351, 369 (2021) 	(noting that while
3 In Lane v. Baywood Hotels, Inc., the court held that it lacked specific jurisdiction
over the franchisor defendants because they neither owned nor operated the location at which
the incident occurred, and the plaintiff in that case was not privy to the franchise agreement.
See No. 25-cv-103, 2025 WL 2419727, at *5 (E.D. La. Aug. 21, 2025). 	Here, the Denny’s
Entities does not own nor operate the franchise location where the alleged discrimination
occurred, and Plaintiff has not alleged that he is privy to the franchise agreement.
Case 4:25-cv-04545 Document 40 Filed 07/27/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 10

8
entering into a franchise agreement with a forum-state resident may appear
as purposeful 	direction of its activities to the forum, there must still be a
connection between the defendant’s conduct, the forum state, and the claims
at issue).
Accordingly, 	Plaintiff 	has failed 	to 	present 	allegations 	sufficient 	to
support the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over the Denny’s Entities
in Texas.
ii. 	General Jurisdiction
Courts may assert general jurisdiction over non-resident defendants and
“hear any and all claims against them when their affiliations with the State
are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render them essentially at home in the
forum State.’” 	Sangha v. Navig8 ShipManagement Priv. Ltd., 882 F.3d 96, 101
(5th Cir. 2018) (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564
U.S. 915 (2011)). 	The “continuous and systematic contacts” test required for
general jurisdiction 	requires extensive, 	substantial 	contacts. 	Johnston v.
Multidata 	Sys. Int’l Corp., 	523 	F.3d 	602, 609 	(5th 	Cir. 2008). 	When a
corporation is the defendant, the “paradigm forums” where it is essentially at
home are the “corporation’s place of incorporation and its principal place of
business.” 	BNSF Ry. Co. v. 	Tyrrell, 	581 	U.S. 	402, 	413 	(2017). 	In the
“exceptional case,” general jurisdiction may be asserted over a corporation in a
Case 4:25-cv-04545 Document 40 Filed 07/27/26 in TXSD Page 8 of 10

9
forum different 	from where it is incorporated 	or has its principal place of
business, but only if its “operations in another forum [are] so substantial and
of such a nature as to render the corporation at home in that state.” 	Id.
(internal quotations omitted). 	Proving such an exceptional case is “incredibly
difficult.” 	Monkton Ins. Servs., Ltd. v. Ritter, 768 F.3d 429, 432 (5th Cir. 2014).
Here, Denny’s Corporation is incorporated in Delaware, Denny’s Inc. is
incorporated in Florida, and both entities maintain their principal offices in
South Carolina. 	(ECF No. 15 at 10). 	Needless to say, Texas is not a home
forum for the Denny’s Entities. 	Further, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not allege
that the Denny’s Entities engage in operations in Texas, let alone operations
that are so substantial and of such a nature as to render the corporation at
home in Texas. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to present allegations to support
the exercise of general personal jurisdiction over Defendants in Texas.4
IV. 	Conclusion
Based 	on 	the 	foregoing, 	the 	Court 	RECOMMENDS 	the 	Denny’s
Entities’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15) be GRANTED and Plaintiff’s causes
of 	actions 	against 	the 	Denny’s 	Entities 	be 	DISMISSED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for lack of personal jurisdiction.
4 Because Plaintiff’s claims against the Denny’s Entities should be dismissed without
prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction, the Court need not reach the Denny’s Entities’ Rule
12(b)(6) arguments.
Case 4:25-cv-04545 Document 40 Filed 07/27/26 in TXSD Page 9 of 10

10
The Clerk shall send copies of this Memorandum and Recommendation
to the respective parties who have fourteen days from the receipt thereof to file
written objections thereto pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)
and General Order 2002-13. 	Failure to file written objections within the time
period mentioned 	shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking the factual
findings and legal conclusions on appeal.
SIGNED in Houston, Texas on July 27, 2026.
______________________________
Richard W. Bennett
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-04545 Document 40 Filed 07/27/26 in TXSD Page 10 of 10