More from the article...
... In a motion to dismiss filed in Texas' northern district last month, MMFA argued that X's lawsuit should be dismissed not just because of a "fatal jurisdictional defect," but "dismissal is also required for lack of venue."
Notably, MMFA is based in Washington, DC, while "X is organized under Nevada law and maintains its principal place of business in San Francisco, California, where its own terms of service require users of its platform to litigate any disputes."
"Texas is not a fair or reasonable forum for this lawsuit," MMFA argued, suggesting that "the case must be dismissed or transferred" because "neither the parties nor the cause of action has any connection to Texas."
Last Friday, X responded to the motion to dismiss, claiming that the lawsuit --which Musk has described as "thermonuclear" -- was appropriately filed in Texas because MMFA "intentionally" targeted readers and at least two X advertisers located in Texas, Oracle and AT&T. According to X, because MMFA "identified Oracle, a Texas-based corporation, by name in its coverage," MMFA "cannot claim surprise at being held to answer for its conduct in Texas." X also claimed that Texas has jurisdiction because Musk resides in Texas and "makes numerous critical business decisions about X while in Texas." ...
According to the Dallas Observer, "two judges for the Northern District's Fort Worth Division are Reed O'Connor, a George W. Bush appointee, and Mark T. Pittman, a Donald Trump appointee," suggesting "this was a strategic move" from X "to get this case before a court that they think will be more likely to administer a more favorable outcome."
Internet law expert Eric Goldman told Ars that, like the recently dismissed X lawsuit against the Center for Countering Digital Hate, "the Media Matters lawsuit seems to be another clear example of an X lawsuit brought against critics primarily motivated by punishment and deterrence, not protecting its legal rights." ...
