Luz Acosta Diaz v. Carlos Subia
446 F.2d 882
Opinion
The order of the District Court dismissing plaintiffs’ third amended complaint is affirmed. We agree with the District Court that plaintiffs failed to set out “a short and plain statement of the claim” as required by Rule 8(a), Fed. R.Civ.P. We do not reach other grounds asserted as basis for the dismissal which is, of course, without prejudice.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Luz Acosta Diaz v. Carlos Subia, 446 F.2d 882 (5th Cir. 1971).
446 F.2d 882 (Luz Acosta Diaz v. Carlos Subia) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. Of New York, Defendant-Third Party v. Marine Mart, Inc., Third Party
431 F.2d 409 (Third Circuit, 1970)