U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1974

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION-Appellant v. the TIMES-PICAYUNE PUBLISHING CORPORATION-Appellee

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided October 7, 1974 · Ainsworth, Roney

500 F.2d 392 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Wm. A. Carey, Gen. Counsel, E. E. O. C., Isabelle R. Cappello, Acting Associate Gen. Counsel, Margaret C. Poles, Atty., Washington, D. C., Peter Sanchez-Navarro, Jr., Acting Reg. Atty., E. E. O. C., Mary J. Mullarkey, Asst. Reg. Atty., Walter W. Garnsey, Jr., Trial Atty., Denver, Colo., Charles White, Dist. Counsel, E. E. O. C., New Orleans, La., Beatrice Rosenberg, E. E. O. C., Washington, D. C., for plaintiff-appellant., Samuel Lang, New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellee.

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision. The 8 that cite it most often are listed here.

Marcia E. Stearns v. Consolidated Management, Inc. (7th Cir. 1984)
Boomer's Neighborhood Grill & Bar, Inc. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 2023)
Myers v. CENTRAL FLORIDA INVESTMENTS, INC. (11th Cir. 2010)
Dinkins v. Charoen Pokphand USA, Inc. (United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama 2001)
Spidle v. Com. of Pa., Office of Budget (District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania 1987)
Jackson v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad (11th Cir. 1982)
Johnson v. Duval County Teachers Credit Union (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 1980)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. National Cash Register Co. (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 1975)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Although we have been asked to render considerable advice as to what the EEOC must have done before it can prevail in this lawsuit, we regard this as a pleading case only, controlled by this Court’s recent decision in EEOC v. Standard Forge & Axle Co., 496 F.2d 1392 (5th Cir. 1974).

By following Standard Forge, we think the original complaint filed in this case by the EEOC, generally alleging that “all conditions precedent to the institution of the lawsuit have been fulfilled,” was sufficient to withstand a” motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), and sufficiently complied with Rules 8(a) (1) and 9(c).

We need not concern ourselves whether the more limited allegations in the second complaint omit some condition precedent that may ultimately control the outcome of the case, inasmuch as this amended complaint was filed in an effort to meet the District Court’s erroneous view of the law.

We therefore vacate the orders and judgment of the District Court granting defendant’s motions to dismiss pursuant *393 to Rule 12(b)(1), with directions to permit plaintiff to file a complaint alleging generally that all conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred, so that the litigation may proceed from that point, in accordance with our decision in Standard Forge.

The appellee shall bear the cost of this appeal.

Vacated and remanded with directions.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.