From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lewis v. Fossil Partners

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
May 29, 2001
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:01-CV-0689-G (N.D. Tex. May. 29, 2001)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:01-CV-0689-G.

May 29, 2001.


ORDER


Plaintiff Judith Lewis ("Lewis") filed her original petition in the district court, 116th Judicial District of Dallas County, Texas, on March 12, 2001. Plaintiff (sic) Original Petition ("Petition") at 1. Lewis's petition alleges violations of three chapters of the Texas Penal Code, three titles of the Texas Civil Code, and eight chapters of Title 18 of the United States Code by her former employer, Fossil Partners, L.P. ("Fossil"). Fossil filed a motion to dismiss Lewis's claims under Rules 8(a)(2), 8(e)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to which Lewis failed to respond. Defendant Fossil Partners, L.P.'s Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support ("Motion"). Rather than granting dismissal, this court ordered Lewis to file "a short and plain statement of her claim showing that she is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment for the relief she seeks." Order, May 8, 2001 at 2.

Apparently in response to the court's order of May 8, 2001, Lewis has filed a document entitled "Plaintiff Original Answer to Fossil Motion to Dismiss." In this document, Lewis relies upon Rules 39, 40, 17, and 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as authority for her contention that this court may not dismiss her petition and that she is entitled to a trial. Plaintiff's Original Answer to Fossil Motion to Dismiss at 1-2. Lewis also states that she is entitled to relief under "United States Code Annotated Title 42 200e-2" and "United States Code Annotated Title 15 3901 Definitions." Id. at 2. Even when Lewis' pleading is construed generously, it does not contain a short and plain statement of her claim showing that she is entitled to relief, or a demand for judgment for the relief she seeks. Because Lewis has failed to comply with the court's order of May 8, 2001, this case is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.

The court notes that 42 U.S.C.A. 200e-2 does not exist. The second statutory provision cited by Lewis, 15 U.S.C.A. 3901, defines terms relating to insurance liability risk retention.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Lewis v. Fossil Partners

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
May 29, 2001
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:01-CV-0689-G (N.D. Tex. May. 29, 2001)
Case details for

Lewis v. Fossil Partners

Case Details

Full title:JUDITH LEWIS, Plaintiff, v. FOSSIL PARTNERS, L.P., ET AL., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

Date published: May 29, 2001

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:01-CV-0689-G (N.D. Tex. May. 29, 2001)