DALLAS - Yesterday, the Fifth Court of Appeals reversed an order dismissing a sexual assault lawsuit against Jerry Jones and the Dallas Cowboys Football Club.
Identified as J.G. in court filings, the plaintiff filed suit against Jones and the Cowboys in September 2020, alleging that two years earlier Jones kissed her on the mouth and forcibly grabbed her without consent and that the DCFC should have known about his misconduct. She later amended her complaint to include the National Football League as a defendant.
According to the Fifth Court’s opinion, the plaintiff used the pseudonym Jane Doe when filing her suit to protect her identity and did not specify where the incident occurred in her complaint.
Court records show Jones and the Cowboys moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims, arguing that she failed to provide “full identifying information” and failed to specify where the misconduct occurred.
Before the trial court heard the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff’s counsel provided her name to the defendants’ counsel by email. She also filed a third amended petition still identifying herself by her initials and specified that the incident occurred in the Tom Landry room at AT&T Stadium, according to the opinion.
Court records show that on Feb. 1, 2022, the trial court issued an “Order Granting Motion to Dismiss on Defendants’ Special Exceptions.” The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice and severed them from her claims against the NFL.
According to the opinion, the plaintiff moved for reconsideration and later supplemented her motion. At the hearing on the motion, her counsel represented that she was willing to amend her pleadings to provide her full name and the required portions of her driver’s license and Social Security numbers. The trial court denied the motion and the appeal followed.
The Fifth Court concluded that the only real pleading deficiency raised by the defendants in their motion to dismiss was the plaintiff’s failure to sufficiently identify herself in her pleadings.
“Appellees (Jones and the Cowboys) do not dispute that they were informed of appellant’s (the plaintiff’s) identity before the trial court ruled on their motion to dismiss,” the opinion states. “We recognize that a trial court has broad discretion in ruling on special exceptions and in dismissing a case when a plaintiff fails to cure pleading defects.
“But because appellant made a good faith attempt to amend her pleadings in response to the court’s special exceptions order and no further special exceptions were made, the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing appellant’s claims.”
Case No. 05-22-00215-CV