Allen v. Vertafore, Inc.

7 Citing cases

  1. Waller v. Jet Specialty, Inc.

    MO:23-CV-00121-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex. Nov. 19, 2024)

    “When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court's review is limited to the complaint; any documents attached to the complaint; any documents attached to the motion to dismiss that are central to the claim and referenced by the complaint; and matters subject to judicial notice under Federal Rule of Evidence 201.” Doe v. Univ. of Tex. M.D. Anderson Cancer Ctr., 653 F.Supp.3d 359, 370 (S.D. Tex. 2023) (citing Allen v. Vertafore, Inc., 28 F.4th 613, 616 (5th Cir. 2022); George v. SI Grp., Inc., 36 F.4th 611, 619 (5th Cir. 2022)). If the plaintiff's allegations are contradicted by facts disclosed by a document attached to the complaint or by facts disclosed by a document attached to the motion to dismiss that are central to the claim and referenced by the complaint, then the plaintiff's contradicted allegations are not accepted as true.

  2. Griffin v. Inogen

    Civil Action 4:23-cv-411-ALM-KPJ (E.D. Tex. Aug. 9, 2024)

    At the motion to dismiss stage, “[t]he court's review is limited to the complaint, any documents attached to the complaint, and any documents attached to the motion to dismiss that are central to the claim and referenced by the complaint.” Allen v. Vertafore, Inc., 28 F.4th 613, 616 (5th Cir. 2022) (quoting Lone Star Fund V (U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2010)). III. ANALYSIS

  3. Desir v. Walmart, Inc.

    Civil Action 4:23-CV-00700 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2024)

    ” Arnold v. Williams, 979 F.3d 262, 266 (5th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “[t]he court's review is limited to the complaint, any documents attached to the complaint, and any documents attached to the motion to dismiss that are central to the claim and referenced by the complaint.” Allen v. Vertafore, Inc., 28 F.4th 613, 616 (5th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). The Court applies a more lenient standard when analyzing the complaints of pro se plaintiffs, but they “must still plead factual allegations that raise the right to relief beyond the speculative level.”

  4. Davis v. ComputerShare Loan Servs.

    Civil Action 4:23-CV-1542 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 8, 2023)   Cited 2 times

    In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “[t]he court's review is limited to the complaint, any documents attached to the complaint, and any documents attached to the motion to dismiss that are central to the claim and referenced by the complaint.” Allen v. Vertafore, Inc., 28 F.4th 613, 616 (5th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). The Court applies a more lenient standard when analyzing the complaints of pro se plaintiffs, but they “must still plead factual allegations that raise the right to relief beyond the speculative level.”

  5. In re Seadrill Ltd.

    Civil Action 4:22-CV-3267 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2023)

    the Court's review is limited to the complaint; any documents attached to the complaint; any documents attached to the motion to dismiss that are central to the claim and referenced by the complaint; and matters subject to judicial notice under Federal Rule of Evidence 201. Allen v. Vertafore, Inc., 28 F.4th 613, 616 (5th Cir. 2022); George v. SI Group, Inc., 36 F.4th 611, 619 (5th Cir. 2022)

  6. Giramur v. Wormuth

    SA-22-CV-529-OLG (HJB) (W.D. Tex. May. 24, 2023)

    In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “[t]he court's review is limited to the complaint, any documents attached to the complaint, and any documents attached to the motion to dismiss that are central to the claim and referenced by the complaint.” Allen v. Vertafore, Inc., 28 F.4th 613, 616 (5th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). IV. Analysis.

  7. Perkins v. Starbucks Corp.

    Civil Action 4:21-CV-4189 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 2022)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that verbal conversations were insufficient to constitute an administrative complaint and stating that plaintiff could not "circumvent the requirement that a charge be in writing by pointing to oral statements that he allegedly made to an EEOC investigator"

    Vertafore, Inc., 28 F.4th 613, 616 (5th Cir. 2022);