In this employment case, Reyes maintained that Texas Health & Human Services (HHSC) terminating her in retaliation for requesting a modified hours to accommodate her disabled daughter’s therapy, thereby violating the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Id. at 2. The District Court found that HHSC “established a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the termination and Ms. Reyes . . . ha[d] failed to produce evidence of pretext or of discriminatory intent.” Id. at 6; see also id. at 7-10. Therefore, the District Court granted HHSC’s motion for summary judgment. Id. at 10.
Foreclosure Case Teeters on Rule 12(b)(6) Dismissal
Gonzales v. Everbank, No. SA-13-CV-733-XR, slip op. (W.D. Tex. Dec. 17, 2013)(Rodriguez, J.)
The bank moved to dismiss after removing this case and Gonzales did not file a response. Her complaint did not “allege a cause of action,” but the District Court construed it to assert breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and breach of contract. Slip op. 1 and 3. The District Court noted that Texas law did not recognize a duty of good faith and fair dealing in the lender-borrower context. Id. at 3. The District Court also observed that her pleading did not allege any facts that could ground a breach of contract claim. Thus, the District Court dismissed the case under Rule 12(b)(6), but afforded Gonzales a chance to amend file an amended complaint for breach of contract before January 10, 2014. Id. at 5.
Judge Sparks Grants Rule 12(b)(6) Dismissal of Section 1983 Claims Against Prison Nurse
Glanville’s alleged that individual medical providers and correctional officers ignored symptoms of an aneurysm he suffered while in the Bartlett State Jail, leaving him brain damaged and unable to work. Slip op. at 1-2. The issue before District Court was whether Glanville had stated a viable section 1983 claim against Nicole Pitts, a prison nurse who briefly participated in his care. Id. at 3 and 5-6. To overcome Pitts’ qualified immunity, this required factual allegations regarding “conduct on the part of Pitts amounting to deliberate indifference to Glanville’s medical needs.” Id. at 7. The District Court determined that the scant references to Pitts in Glanville’s complaint did not approach that heightened pleading standard; therefore, the District Court dismissed the claims against Pitts. Id. at 9.