Case law

Areizaga v. ADW Corp.

314 F.R.D. 428 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 4, 2016

The federal work product doctrine, as codified by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3), provides for the qualified protection of documents and tangible things prepared by or for a party or that party’s representative … 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 .

Trevino v. Contreras

District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 6, 2025

or Congress has clearly abrogated it.” … Therefore, under the Eleventh Amendment, “[f]ederal courts are without jurisdiction over suits against a state, … unless that state has waived its sovereign immunity or Congress has clearly abrogated it.” Moore v.

Hurd v. Bac Home Loans Servicing, LP

880 F. Supp. 2d 747 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 29, 2012

In addition, “it is clearly proper in deciding a 12(b)(6) motion to take judicial notice of matters of public record.” Norris v. Hearst Trust, 500 F.3d 454 , 461 n. 9 (5th Cir.2007); Cinel v. … To establish promissory estoppel, a plaintiff must establish: (1) a promise; (2) foreseeability of reliance on the promise by the promisor; and (3) substantial detrimental reliance by the promisee.

Lee v. Navarro Savings Ass'n

416 F. Supp. 1186 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jul 28, 1976

Plaintiffs finally suggest that Larwin is inapplicable to their case, because FMI is not now qualified as an REIT for tax purposes. … They should also take note of the well established principle that “[i]t is never too late for a party, or the court on its own motion, to assert lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.” C.

Haddix v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jul 11, 2025

The requirement that the lawsuit commence within sixty days stems from the general rule of sovereign immunity. … The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure establish that “[a] civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.” FED. R. CIV. P. 3.

Willis v. Officer Diaz De Leon

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

violation of his Fourth Amendment Rights and concluded that Officer De Leon is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because “Plaintiff has not alleged a statutory or constitutional violation.” … Therefore, the Court finds that Willis has failed to plead an unconstitutional search and seizure and, thus, Officer De Leon is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Williams v. City of Dallas

178 F.R.D. 103 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 5, 1998

McAfee, 170 F.R.D. 404, 407 (E.D.Pa.1997), and must meet “the heavy burden of establishing that compliance with the subpoena would be ‘unreasonable and oppressive.’ ” Barnes Found, v. … Second, the individual defendants have asserted the affirmative defense of qualified immunity.

Clark v. Clegg

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

Clark has failed to plausibly plead violations of the Fourth and - 2 - First Amendments, and to establish a private right of action under 18 U.S.C. … § 242, and Deputy Clegg has demonstrated that he is entitled to qualified and sovereign immunity. The court therefore grants the motion to dismiss, as amended.

Family Snacks, Inc. v. Andrews & Kurth, L.L.P. (In Re Pro-Snax Distributors, Inc.)

212 B.R. 834 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 4, 1997

However, if the bankruptcy court misapprehends the governing legal standard in making a factual finding, that finding loses the insulation of the “clearly erroneous” rule. Armco, Inc. v. … United States, 511 U.S. 809, 814 , 114 S.Ct. 1960, 1965 , 128 L.Ed.2d 797 (1994) (“Our cases establish that attorney’s fees generally are not a recoverable cost of litigation ‘absent explicit congressional authorization’”

Hagler v. Security Mut. Life Ins.

244 F. 863 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jun 11, 1917

The purpose and policy of the law, requiring foreign insurance companies to name an agent in the state for the purpose of process, is clearly to furnish a means by which the insurance companies soliciting and writing policies … The result would be, to a large extent, immunity from all legal responsibility.’ The court,, in view of those facts, was of opinion that Congress intended no such result.”

Mims v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co.

254 F.R.D. 482 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 11, 2008

Certification is also improper if the class is not adequately defined and clearly ascertainable. See Ladd v. Dairyland County Mut. Ins. Co. of Texas, 96 *486 F.R.D. 335, 338 (N.D.Tex.1982). … According to Stewart, Plaintiffs’ proposed class is not objective or clearly ascertainable because it is allegedly based on a liability determination and therefore defined in a circular or “fail safe” manner.

Chandler v. United States

338 F. Supp. 3d 592 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Oct 9, 2018

No. 32], seeking summary judgment in her favor as to the issue of whether she qualified as an innocent spouse within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 6015 (f). … This means that the moving party must "demonstrate[ ] that the transferee venue is clearly more convenient." Id.

Anderson v. United States

District Court, N.D. Texas · Oct 26, 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)). … Serrano-Mercado, Yardbrough, and LeBlanc assert they are entitled to dismissal based on qualified immunity.

Cavaness

District Court, N.D. Texas · May 13, 2026

Rather, “the basis upon which jurisdiction depends must be alleged affirmatively and distinctly and cannot be established argumentatively or by mere inference.” Getty Oil Corp. v. Ins. … That is, “‘[f]ederal courts are without jurisdiction over suits against a state, a state agency, or a state official in his official capacity unless that state has waived its sovereign immunity or Congress has clearly abrogated

Ryan v. Flowserve Corp.

444 F. Supp. 2d 718 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jun 9, 2006

L.J. 1 , 17 (2005) (“Clearly the [Dura ] Court means for ... [pleading loss causation] to be a fairly simple [exercise].... ”). … Nonetheless, that does not qualify the question for a § 1292(b) appeal.

Abel v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare

384 F. Supp. 1212 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 20, 1974

Abel to reach this stage of proceedings clearly indicates the mental disability under which he is and has been operating and for which he claims payment. … But insofar as the Fifth Circuit is concerned, “subjective medical evidence” from qualified practitioners is admissible and significant in determining disability under the Social Security Act. Whitt, supra, at 909 .

Federal Trade Commission v. Match Group Inc

District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 24, 2022

Case law in the Fifth Circuit is well-established that dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) may be appropriate where an affirmative defense appears clearly on the face of the complaint. … Match is clearly entitled to immunity on this claim under § 230(c)(2). See id. (“[T]he CDA also immunizes such services from liability based on efforts to self-regulate material.”); cf. Herrick, 306 F.

Morton v. GTE North Inc.

922 F. Supp. 1169 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jan 23, 1996

The legislative histoiy of the ADA reveals “that the term ‘qualified’ refers to whether the individual [was] qualified at the time of the job action in question.” Parker v. Metropolitan Life Ins. … Therefore, the conflicting statements clearly do not create a fact issue. And less obvious, but nonetheless true, the undecipherable nature of the computer printout makes it a conclusory statement as well.

Board of Trustees of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Seventh District Retirement Benefit and Trust Fund v. Muniz

District Court, N.D. Texas · Nov 17, 2022

Several factors are relevant to this inquiry, including (1) whether there are material issues of fact; (2) whether there has been substantial prejudice; (3) whether the grounds for default have been clearly established; … The grounds for default have been clearly established by the materials before the Court. (ECF 22; ECF 29).

Lindsey

District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 25, 2026

Because “federal courts are without jurisdiction over suits against a state, a state agency, or a state official in his official capacity unless that state has waived its sovereign immunity or Congress has clearly abrogated … established right.”