Case Name: Luz Acosta DIAZ et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Carlos SUBIA et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1971-07-16
Citations: 446 F.2d 882
Docket Number: No. 71-1471
Parties: Luz Acosta DIAZ et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Carlos SUBIA et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 446
Pages: 882–882

Head Matter:
Luz Acosta DIAZ et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Carlos SUBIA et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 71-1471
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 16, 1971.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 6, 1971.
Mark F. Howell, J. B. Ochoa, Jr.; Clarence Moyers, Albert Armendariz, Frank T. Ivy, Edward F. Sherman, El Paso, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellants.
John B. Luscombe, Jr., Travis White, City Atty., John C. Ross, Jr., Wade Adkins, Asst. City Attys., El Paso, Tex., for defendants-appellees; Peticolas, Lus-combe, Stephens & Windle, El Paso, Tex., of counsel.
Before BELL, AINSWORTH and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5 Cir., Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
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.