Alamo Forensic Servs. v. Bexar Cnty.

5 Citing cases

  1. Lamartina v. Madden

    No. 24-30381 (5th Cir. Jan. 6, 2025)

    Alamo Forensic Servs., L.L.C. v. Bexar Cnty., 861 Fed.Appx. 564, 567 (5th Cir. 2021) (citing Ferrer v. Chevron Corp., 484 F.3d 776, 780 (5th Cir. 2007)).

  2. McCarty v. Teal

    1:22-CV-170-H (N.D. Tex. Sep. 27, 2023)

    Additionally, a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction when governmental immunity bars suit. See In re USA Promlite Tech. Inc., 636 B.R. 743, 755 (Bankr.S.D.Tex. 2022); Alamo Forensic Servs., L.L.C. v. Bexar County, 861 Fed.Appx. 564, 568 (5th Cir. 2021).

  3. Pompa v. Wal-Mart Stores Tex.

    Civil Action 5:21-CV-73 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 7, 2022)

    See, e.g., Trippodo v. SP Plus Corp., No. 4:20-cv-4063, 2021 WL 2446204, at *3 (S.D. Tex. May 21, 2021), R. & R. adopted, 2021 WL 2446191 (S.D. Tex. June 15, 2021) (compiling cases). Under Rule 12(b)(6), a court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and limit its review to “the face of the pleadings.” Alamo Forensic Servs., LLC v. Bexar Cnty., 861 Fed.Appx. 564, 567 (5th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). Documents may be considered part of the pleadings if they are attached to the complaint. Carter v. Target Corp., 541 Fed.Appx. 413, 418 n.2 (5th Cir. 2013).

  4. Rosales v. Indus. Sales & Servs., LLC

    Civil Action 6:20-CV-00030 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 10, 2021)   Cited 1 times
    Finding that, at the motion to dismiss stage, plausibly alleging just one of the four economic reality test factors is enough to establish employer status for purposes of FLSA claim

    The court need not look beyond the face of the pleadings in determining whether the plaintiff has stated a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Spivey v. Robertson, 197 F.3d 772, 774 (5th Cir. 1999); accord Alamo Forensic Servs., L.L.C. v. Bexar County, 861 Fed.Appx. 564, 567 (5th Cir. 2021) (per curiam). And review is limited to the complaint's allegations and to the documents attached to a defendant's motion to dismiss to the extent those documents are referenced in the complaint and are central to the claims.

  5. Campos v. City of Port Lavaca

    CIVIL 6:20-CV-00055 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2021)   Cited 2 times
    Explaining why such footage is neither central to the plaintiff's claims nor a matter of which the Court can take judicial notice

    The court need not look beyond the face of the pleadings in determining whether the plaintiff has stated a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Spivey v. Robertson, 197 F.3d 772, 774 (5th Cir. 1999); accord Alamo Forensic Servs., L.L.C. v. Bexar County, 861 Fed.Appx. 564, 567 (5th Cir. 2021) (per curiam). And review is limited to the complaint's allegations and to the documents attached to a defendant's motion to dismiss to the extent those documents are referenced in the complaint and are central to the claims.