Thompson v. CT Corporation System, No. 3:2022cv00150 - Document 11 (N.D. Tex. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 9 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by CT Corporation System, and granting plaintiff 28 days to replead. (Ordered by Senior Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 3/3/2022) (Senior Judge Sidney A Fitzwater)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Thompson v. CT Corporation System Doc. 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION TRACEY THOMPSON, Plaintiff, VS. CT CORPORATION SYSTEM, Defendant. § § § § Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-0150-D § § § § § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendant CT Corporation System’s February 8, 2022 motion to dismiss—to which plaintiff has not responded—is granted.1 Applying the facial plausibility jurisprudence of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), the court concludes that plaintiff’s state-court original petition fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted and is subject to dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), both on the merits and as barred by the statute of limitations.2 Plaintiff filed this case in state court, under the pleading standards that govern in that forum. She should be given an opportunity to replead under the federal pleading standards. See, e.g., Hoffman v. L & M Arts, 774 F.Supp.2d 826, 849 (N.D. Tex. 2011) (Fitzwater, C.J.) (granting similar 1 Under § 205(a)(5) of the E-Government Act of 2002 and the definition of “written opinion” adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States, this is a “written opinion[] issued by the court” because it “sets forth a reasoned explanation for [the] court’s decision.” It has been written, however, primarily for the parties, to decide issues presented in this case, and not for publication in an official reporter, and should be understood accordingly. 2 In addition to failing to state a claim, plaintiff affirmatively pleads facts that establish that her lawsuit is barred by the statute of limitations. She alleges in her original petition that she was injured on November 12, 2019. Pet. at 2, ¶ 4. She filed this lawsuit in state court more than two years later, on December 20, 2021. Dockets.Justia.com relief in removed case). Accordingly, the court grants plaintiff 28 days from the date this order is filed to file an amended complaint. If she fails to replead, this action will be dismissed based on defendant’s February 8, 2022 motion. If she repleads, defendant may move anew to dismiss, if it has a basis to do so. SO ORDERED. March 3, 2022. _________________________________ SIDNEY A. FITZWATER SENIOR JUDGE -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
