Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

Horton v. Sogno Tours — Magistrate judge recommends dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction

Reported / Citable

Case
Lucas B. Horton v. Sogno Tours LLC and MyVacationDiscover
Court
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Judge
David L. Horan
Date Decided
August 14, 2026
Docket No.
3:25-cv-02371-E-BN
Topics
Personal Jurisdiction; TCPA; Agency; Jurisdictional Discovery

Background

Lucas B. Horton, proceeding without counsel, sued Sogno Tours LLC and MyVacationDiscover under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and state law. He alleged that telemarketers associated with Beach Express International and My Vacation Discover called him and sold him a vacation package.

Sogno Tours moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), denying any relationship with the callers or the entities that allegedly sold the package. Horton argued that the callers acted as Sogno Tours’ agents and alternatively requested jurisdictional discovery to uncover evidence of that relationship.

The Court’s Holding

Magistrate Judge David L. Horan recommended granting Sogno Tours’ motion and dismissing Horton’s claims against it without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. Because Horton did not allege that Sogno Tours was at home in Texas, the relevant question was whether specific jurisdiction arose from deliberate Texas contacts connected to the lawsuit.

The magistrate judge concluded that Horton’s allegations were speculative and did not plausibly establish that Sogno Tours controlled the alleged callers or otherwise had an agency relationship with them. The findings also recommended denying jurisdictional discovery because Horton had not identified specific facts likely to establish the necessary jurisdictional contacts; his request instead amounted to an impermissible fishing expedition.

Key Takeaways

  • A plaintiff seeking to attribute a telemarketer’s forum contacts to a seller must allege facts supporting an agency relationship, including the seller’s right to assign tasks and control how they are performed.
  • A shared marketing company, a disputed telephone-number connection, and speculation that nominally separate businesses are the same entity did not establish a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction.
  • Jurisdictional discovery requires specific allegations showing that the requested evidence is likely to support jurisdiction, not merely a hope that discovery will uncover an agency relationship.

Why It Matters

The recommendation illustrates that alleged TCPA violations occurring in the forum do not by themselves establish personal jurisdiction over a defendant accused of benefiting from third-party calls. Plaintiffs must connect the defendant itself to the forum through adequately pleaded contacts or a factually supported agency theory.

It also underscores that jurisdictional discovery is not automatic when a defendant contests its relationship with telemarketers. A plaintiff must first make a preliminary, particularized showing that discovery could reveal jurisdictionally significant facts.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top