Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas considers Serrato Corporation’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Andrea K. Pitts’s wrongful-discharge claim under Texas law. The court holds that Pitts failed to plead facts showing that she was discharged solely for refusing to perform an illegal act, dismisses Count Three without prejudice, and grants leave to amend by February 27, 2026.
Holdings
- Pitts failed to state a plausible Texas wrongful-discharge claim because she did not allege that Serrato asked her to perform an illegal act, that she refused to perform it, or that her discharge was based solely on that refusal.
- A district court may not grant a motion to dismiss solely because the plaintiff failed to oppose it; the court must evaluate the merits of the motion.
Questions Presented
- Whether Pitts plausibly pleaded a Texas wrongful-discharge claim under the narrow public-policy exception to employment at will.
- Whether the motion to dismiss could be granted solely because Pitts failed to respond.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (7)
- Webb v. Morella, 457 F. App'x 448, 452 n.4 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam)(followed)
- Lone Star Fund V (U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2010)(followed)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-80, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009)(followed)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007)(followed)
- In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007)(followed)
- Montgomery Cnty. Hosp. Dist. v. Brown, 965 S.W.2d 501, 502 (Tex. 1998)(followed)
- Sabine Pilot Serv., Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tex. 1985)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…