Case law

Garcia

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jul 15, 2026

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. U.S. CONST., AMEND I. … Garcia has fully responded to the Court’s questionnaire and has clearly stated his best case.

Harrison v. Collier

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jul 10, 2025

against a government entity or employee if the court determines that the complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … The district court is not required to allow such an opportunity, though, if the prisoner’s claims are clearly frivolous, Eason v.

Harris v. UnitedHealth Group Inc of Texas

District Court, N.D. Texas · May 28, 2024

We must first establish that the Life Insurance Plan is an ERISA-governed plan. … “To determine whether a particular plan qualifies as an ERISA plan, we ask whether the plan (1) exists; (2) falls within the safe harbor exclusion established by the Department of Labor; and (3) meets the ERISA requirement

Henderson v. Toliver

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jan 24, 2025

And “[i]t is well-established that a district court may dismiss a complaint on its own motion under [Rule] 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may granted.” Starrett v. U.S. … A review of Henderson’s filing reflects that the complaint presents allegations that qualify as clearly baseless, irrational, or wholly incredible, requiring dismissal with prejudice.

Stone v. Wilson

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jul 13, 2021

Lamb, 990 F.3d 879, 881 (5th Cir. 2021) (finding “the Bivens question is antecedent” to other issues in a case, including qualified immunity (internal quotations and citations omitted)). … Such a finding of deliberate indifference, though, “must rest on facts clearly evincing ‘wanton’ actions on the parts of the defendants.” Johnson v.

Katerra Inc v. Weaver

District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 22, 2021

A court may grant such relief only when the movant establishes that: (1) there is a substantial likelihood that the movant will prevail on the merits; (2) there is a substantial threat that irreparable harm will … The inclusion of this assertion in Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application does not qualify as a written certification by its attorney for purposes of Rule 65(b)(1)(B).

Gore v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc

District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 1, 2023

Although his pleadings include a request for attorney’s fees, he notes that this request is qualified by his allegation “if applicable.” … Gore’s DTPA claim as pleaded fails because he does not qualify as a consumer, the court need not detail the additional reasons why the damages he alleges with respect to the DTPA are conclusory and insufficient to establish

United States ex rel. Wall v. Vista Hospice Care

319 F.R.D. 498 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 22, 2016

And, “[u]nlike the attorney-client privilege, the burden of proving waiver of work product immunity falls on the party asserting waiver.” Brady, 238 F.R.D. at 444 . … Bull clearly explained (until she was instructed by VistaCare’s counsel to stop) which sections she wrote and which the Vis-taCare lawyers wrote.

Zarate

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jul 16, 2026

APPLICABLE LAW A person may qualify for or disability insurance benefits under the Act if they are disabled. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(a)(1). … “It must do more than create a suspicion of the existence of the fact to be established[.]” Hames v. Heckler, 707 F.2d 162, 164 (5th Cir. 1983).

Legacy Equity Advisors LLC v. AT&T Inc

District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 15, 2023

“[I]t is clearly proper in deciding a 12(b)(6) motion to take judicial notice of matters of public record.” Norris v. Hearst Tr., 500 F.3d 454, 461 n.9 (5th Cir. 2007). … AT&T’s SEC filings do not clearly address this sale, so the court cannot take judicial notice of any earlier date on which Legacy would have had notice of its claim.

Orlando v. Parker

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jun 13, 2024

“A complaint lacks an arguable basis in law if it is based on an indisputable meritless legal theory, such as if the complaint alleges the violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist.” Id. … Supervisory liability can be established without overt personal participation in the B. Individual Capacity Claims 1.

BNSF Railway Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen

595 F. Supp. 2d 722 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Nov 12, 2008

Both BLET and UTU argue that, despite the qualifying language in both CBAs, their respective agreements with BNSF give the employees represented by each the exclusive assignment to road-service RCO. … To the extent that the Court has been called upon to resolve the issue of whether the dispute in this case is major or minor, there is clearly a controversy subject to resolution under the Declaratory Judgment Act.

VanDerStok v. Garland

District Court, N.D. Texas · Oct 1, 2022

Where costs are nonrecoverable because the government-defendant enjoys sovereign immunity from monetary damages, as is the case here, irreparable harm is generally satisfied. See Wages & White Lion Invs., L.L.C. v. … Crucially, this Court’s injunction does not offer blanket immunity from prosecution for all firearm-related offenses to Tactical Machining and its customers, including Individual Plaintiffs.

Sedwick v. McDonald

District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 22, 2025

Under that framework, a plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of discrimination by demonstrating that she: (1) is a member of a protected group; (2) was qualified for the position at issue; (3) was discharged … Title VII does not immunize employees from slight annoyances at work. Askar v. Envoy Air, Inc., 2025 WL 624489, at *2 (N.D. Tex.

Mesa Underwriters Specialty Insurance Company v. West Dallas Investments LP

District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 22, 2025

WDI argues that Mesa has not established that the facts alleged qualify as an assault or battery under the policy. Def.’s Resp. Br. at 16 [19]. … The petition clearly alleges that the same inebriated actors (“these inebriated young men”) fired shots into the crowd after firing into the air.

Nakos

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jul 15, 2026

And Nakos’ reliance on the fact that the Policy Manual identifies transcripts of audio or video coverage as qualifying media that may satisfy the Publication Criterion is misplaced. … But the court did not purport to establish a rule requiring USCIS to conduct an article- specific analysis.

Ozee v. American Council on Gift Annuities

888 F. Supp. 1318 · District Court, N.D. Texas · May 3, 1995

If the movant bears the burden of proof on a claim, he must establish all elements of the claim to prevail on summary judgment. Western Fire Insurance Co. v. … That the Foundation is trustee of at least two trusts (the Living Trust and the irrevocable Unitrust) established by Ms. Peter is undisputed.

Arkansas v. Wilmington Trust, National Association

District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 16, 2020

Further, it is well-established and ‘“clearly proper in deciding a 12(b)(6) motion [that a court may] take judicial Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 7 notice of matters of public record … cited Hendrick for the following proposition: [R]es judicata barred collateral attacks because plaintiff “had the opportunity to effectively litigate his claim,” even though he convincingly argued that ‘he clearly

Sabal v. Anti-Defamation League

District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 30, 2024

Tenn. 2021) (finding no absolute immunity for Congressional testimony republished during annual meeting and to media outlets). Since Sabal admits that Richman’s Testimony was presented to the U.S. … Even if Sabal is correct that Richman’s Testimony included defamatory statements, the testimony is not actionable due to lack of a qualifying republication.

Washington v. Garcia

District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 26, 2022

Higgs, 892 F.2d 438, 440 (Sth Cir. 1990), if it is frivolous,’ malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ … Plaintiff claims Defendant Garcia’s intentionally destroyed Plaintiff's property, which would be unauthorized, clearly distinguishable from the facts in Allen.