Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Deletrica F. Johnson filed suit pro se in Texas state court against the Dallas Housing Authority and LXD-WSC, LLC, doing business as Wilson Crossing. She alleged, among other claims, that the housing authority deprived her of a protected property interest without due process in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that Wilson Crossing committed false, misleading, and unconscionable practices under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
The Dallas Housing Authority removed the action to federal court with Wilson Crossing’s consent based on federal-question jurisdiction. Wilson Crossing then moved to abate the case, arguing that Johnson had not provided the pre-suit notice required by Texas Business and Commerce Code § 17.505. Johnson did not respond to the motion by the court-ordered deadline.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Wilson Crossing’s motion and abated the entire action until the 60th day after Johnson provides Wilson Crossing with notice complying with § 17.505(a). The court explained that the DTPA’s notice provision is mandatory and requires a consumer seeking damages to give written notice at least 60 days before filing suit, describing the specific complaint and the claimed economic damages, mental-anguish damages, and expenses in reasonable detail.
Johnson did not show that either statutory exception applied—namely, that notice was impracticable because limitations would expire or that she asserted the DTPA claim as a counterclaim. The court declined to act on the pending Rule 26(f) report and ordered Wilson Crossing to file a status report by November 23, 2026, addressing whether the case should be reinstated.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff pursuing DTPA damages must comply with the statute’s mandatory pre-suit notice requirement unless a statutory exception applies.
- The notice must provide reasonable detail about the consumer’s complaint and the amounts claimed for economic damages, mental anguish, and expenses.
- Johnson’s failure to provide compliant notice resulted in abatement of the entire action, and continued failure to cure could lead to dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(b).
Why It Matters
The order illustrates that failure to satisfy the DTPA’s pre-suit notice requirement can halt an entire federal action containing both state and federal claims. Pro se status does not excuse compliance with the statute’s substantive prerequisites.
The court also made clear that abatement may not continue indefinitely without consequence: if Johnson does not cure the notice defect, her lawsuit may be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.