647 F.Supp. 116 (S.D.Tex. 1986), Civ. A. H-85-6947, Willy v. Coastal Corp.
|Docket Nº:||Civ. A. H-85-6947|
|Citation:||647 F.Supp. 116|
|Party Name:||Willy v. Coastal Corp.|
|Case Date:||November 12, 1986|
|Court:||United States District Courts, 5th Circuit, Southern District of Texas|
George A. Young, Houston, Tex., for plaintiff.
James L. Reed, Looper, Reed, Ewing & McGraw, Houston, Tex., for defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
HITTNER, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (as to Plaintiff's alleged First Cause of Action for wrongful termination). Having considered the pleadings and the law applicable thereto, this Court is of the opinion that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss should be, and hereby is, GRANTED. It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff's First Cause of Action, alleging wrongful termination, be DISMISSED pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Furthermore, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff's remaining pendant claims (Plaintiff's Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action) be DISMISSED.
Plaintiff Willy complains via five alleged causes of action of his termination from employment as "in-house" counsel with Defendant Coastal Corporation. Willy worked for Coastal Corporation for over three years before he was fired on October 1, 1984. His legal advice concerned the company's compliance with various federal and state environmental laws.
Plaintiff's first cause of action alleges wrongful termination from his employment as an "in-house" attorney for the Defendant corporation. Plaintiff contends that he was fired because he "required the company to comply with the environmental laws. They objected to this requirement. I left the employment of the company involuntarily." Plaintiff's Petition for Removal, exhibit 1, Plaintiff's Original Petition, page 10. The Plaintiff does not allege, however, that he reported these alleged violations by his employer to any Federal Authority. 1
Nonetheless, this Court will not decide whether the Defendant company ordered the plaintiff to commit an illegal act. The basis for dismissal rests upon another rationale.
The well-established standard to be used for dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is "that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-02, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). The purpose of the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is to test the law of the alleged claim, and not the facts allegedly supporting the claim. 5 C. WRIGHT & A. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE §...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP