Allen v. Vertafore, Inc.

19 Citing cases

  1. Spratlen v. Rainey

    No. 24-CV-00053-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex. Dec. 27, 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)). “Moreover, where video recordings are included in the pleadings, as is the case here, the video depictions of events, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, should be adopted over the factual allegations in the complaint if the video ‘blatantly contradict[s]' those allegations.”

  2. 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.

  3. Clark v. City of Pasadena

    Civil Action 4:23-CV-04050 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 30, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    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).

  4. Gardner-Douglas v. Tunsel

    Civil Action 4:23-CV-04207 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 2024)

    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); see, e.g., Robles v. Ciarletta, 797 Fed.Appx. 821, 831 (5th Cir. 2019) (district court properly considered body camera video and police report when ruling on motion to dismiss where both pieces of evidence were referenced in complaint and were central to plaintiff's claims).

  5. North v. Harris Cent. Appraisal Dist.

    Civil Action 4:23-CV-04067 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 2024)

    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. Salvador v. Target Corp.

    Civil Action 4:23-cv-585-SDJ-KPJ (E.D. Tex. Jul. 2, 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

  7. 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.”

  8. Neubel-Johnson v. Collin Coll.

    Civil Action 4:22-cv-1029-SDJ-KPJ (E.D. Tex. Dec. 27, 2023)

    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

  9. Bradshaw v. Allen Police Dep't

    Civil Action 4:23-cv-87-SDJ-KPJ (E.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2023)

    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)).

  10. 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.”