Thompson v. Fuyao Glass America

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
THALIA KIESHA JASMINE
THOMPSON
Plaintiff,
FUYAO GLASS AMERICA,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:25-cv-259
JUDGE WALTER H. RICE
DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY (DOC. #14) AND SUSTAINING
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. #8); PLAINTIFF IS
GRANTED 28 DAYS TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(1)
and 12(b)(6) filed by Defendant Fuyao Glass America ("Defendant"), Doc. #8.
Plaintiff Thalia Kiesha Jasmine Thompson ("Plaintiff") filed a response in
opposition to the motion. Doc. #12, and Defendant filed a reply in support of its
motion. Doc. #13. Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply. Doc. #14.
For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to file Sur-Reply,
Doc. #14, is SUSTAINED. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Doc. #8, is SUSTAINED
I. Background
Thalia Thompson was employed at Fuyao Glass America until her
termination on November 13, 2023. Thompson initially filed this suit on July 30,
Case: 3:25-cv-00259-WHR-CHG Doc #: 15 Filed: 01/20/26 Page: 1 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2025, seeking in forma pauperis status. Doc. #1. On September 15, 2025, this Court
rejected her attempt to proceed in forma pauperis and required Plaintiff to pay the
requisite filing fee to continue the case.
Plaintiff paid the fee on October 15, 2025, and her Complaint was officially
docketed that same day. Doc. #5. Defendantfiled a Motion to Dismiss on November
26, 2025, arguing that Plaintiff had not properly alleged this Court's subject matter
jurisdiction as required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and that Plaintiff had not
properly alleged claims upon which relief could be granted as required under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Doc. #8.
II. Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a party to move for dismissal
of a complaint on the basis that it "fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. " The moving party "has the burden of showing that the [opposing party]
has failed to adequately state a claim for relief. " DirecTV, Inc. v. Treesh, 487 F. 3d
471, 476 (6th Cir. 2007), citing Carver v. Bunch, 946 F. 2d 451, 454-55 (6th Cir. 1991).
The purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss "is to allow a defendant to test
whether, as a matter of law, the plaintiff is entitled to legal relief even if everything
alleged in the complaint is true. " Mayer v. Mylod, 988 F. 2d 635, 638 (6th Cir. 1993).
In ruling on the motion, the Court must "construe the complaint in the light most
Case: 3:25-cv-00259-WHR-CHG Doc #: 15 Filed: 01/20/26 Page: 2 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>

favorable to the plaintiff, accept its [well-pleaded] allegations as true, and draw all
reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. " Treesh, 487 F. 3d at 476.
Nevertheless, to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the complaint
must contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."
Twombly, 550 U. S. at 570. Unless the facts alleged show that the plaintiff's claim
crosses "the line from conceivable to plausible, [the] complaint must be
dismissed. " Id. Although this standard does not require "detailed factual
allegations, " it does require more than "labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. " Id. at 555. "Rule 8 . . .
does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than
conclusions. " Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U. S. 662, 678-79 (2009). Legal conclusions
"must be supported by well-pleaded factual allegations" that "plausibly give rise
to an entitlement of relief. " Id. at 679.
To survive to the discovery phase, a plaintiff need only establish that the
pleadings be plausible, not probable. Watson Carpet & Floor Covering, Inc. v.
Mohawk Indus., Inc., 648 F. 3d 452, 458 (6th Cir. 2011 ). "Ferreting out the most likely
reason for the defendants' actions is not appropriate at the pleadings stage. " Id.
A challenge to the subject matter jurisdiction of the United States District
Court under Rule 12(b)(1 ) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may either be facial
or factual. Carrier Corp. v. Outokumpu Oyj, 673 F. 3d 430, 440 (6th Cir. 2012). A facial
Case: 3:25-cv-00259-WHR-CHG Doc #: 15 Filed: 01/20/26 Page: 3 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>

challenge requires all the plaintiff's allegation to be accepted as true, "much as with
a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. " Id. In contrast, a factual challenge to the court's subject
matter jurisdiction allows the court to "weigh evidence to confirm the existence of
the factual predicates for subject matter jurisdiction, " without presuming the truth
of the allegations. Id. (citing RMI Titanium Co. v. WestinghouseElec. Corp.. 7Q F. 3d
1125, 1134 (6th Cir. 1996)). "Making this 'crucial distinction, often overlooked/ is
essential to determining the proper standard of review to apply. " Lockhart v.
Garzella, No. 3:19-cv-405, 2022 WL 1046766, at *5 (S. D. Ohio Apr. 7, 2022) (Rice, J.)
(quoting RMI Titanium, 78 F. 3d at 1134).
Here, Defendants' challenges to this Court's subject matter jurisdiction are
purely legal. As such, the Court will assume all of Plaintiff's factual allegations to be
true, as with the standard of review for a motion made under Rule 12(b)(6).
III. Analysis
Defendant's arguments for dismissal boil down to a single core idea: Plaintiff
has not sufficiently alleged the basis for the claims she now brings. In its motion,
Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient non-conclusory facts
to support her claims. Doc. #8, PagelD #45. Moreover, Defendant posits that Plaintiff
has failed to allege membership in a protected class or state specific facts showing
how she was discriminated against because of her membership in a protected class.
Case: 3:25-cv-00259-WHR-CHG Doc #: 15 Filed: 01/20/26 Page: 4 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Plaintiff's response in opposition to the motion consists largely of a personal
narrative surrounding her employment at Fuyao. For example, she states that "I
was assaulted by a 3rd party associate. I followed proper procedure & was fired for
it. " Doc. #12, PagelD #61. Plaintiff, however, does not squarely respond to
Defendant's legal arguments.
After Defendant's reply reiterated the notion that Plaintiff had failed to
provide a legal justification supporting her view. Plaintiff filed a motion seeking
leave to file a sur-reply. Docs. #13, 14. As justification for the sur-reply. Plaintiff
states that she did meet her burden of validly alleging claims of wrongful
termination, discrimination, and retaliation. Doc. #14, PagelD #129. The Court will
consider Plaintiff's proposed sur-reply and therefore SUSTAINS her motion seeking
leave to file the same. Doc. #14.
However, Plaintiff's sur-reply does not remedy the failure to address
Defendant's legal arguments. Instead, she reiterates that she feels as though she
were wronged and mentions two other cases brought against Defendant which she
claims support her cause of action. 1 Doc. #14, PagelD#131.
1 Plaintiff does not provide citations to the two cases she mentions, but it appears
that she references Gamer v. Fuyao Glass America, No. 3:21-cv-51, 2023 WL
7018791 (S. D. Ohio Oct. 20, 2023). Garnerwas dismissed in favor of the defendant
at the summary judgment stage and the appeal to the Sixth Circuit was dismissed
by stipulation of the parties. Id. ; Gamer v. Fuyao Glass America, Inc., No. 23-3960,
5
Case: 3:25-cv-00259-WHR-CHG Doc #: 15 Filed: 01/20/26 Page: 5 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Pro se filings are "to be liberally construed, " Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U. S. 97,
106 (1976), and "a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to
less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. " Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U. S. 89, 94 (2007) (percuriam) (quoting Estelle, 429 U. S. at 106) (internal
quotation marks omitted). But that leeway is not unlimited, and "[e]ven a pro se
pleading must provide the opposing party with notice of the relief sought, and it is
not within the purview of the district court to conjure up claims never presented."
Frengler v. Gen. Motors. 482 F. App'x 975, 976-77 (6th Cir. 2012). Moreover, the law
is clear that a court evaluating a motion to dismiss "must focus only on the
allegations in the pleadings, " and cannot consider additional facts asserted in
memoranda opposing the motion to dismiss. Bates v. Green Farms Condominium
Ass'n, 958 F. 3d 470, 483 (6th Cir. 2020).
Plaintiff's claims are relatively brief and can be restated in full here:
I was wrongfully terminated by Fuyao Glass America on 1 1/13/23. 1 was
discriminated against due to my ethnic background & gender. I was
made to work in a hostile work environment. All my issues & concerns
were brought to my management & employee relations rep but
nothing was done. I was targeted by my co-workers & management
these concerns were brought up to my management & employee rep
& nothing happened except me getting fired. I have proof of all
situations & policies that I was let go for to prove my case & witnesses.
2024 WL 832772 (6th Cir. Feb. 20, 2024). Plaintiff also mentions "Coldly vs. Fuyao,"
a case which this Court has been unable to locate.
Case: 3:25-cv-00259-WHR-CHG Doc #: 15 Filed: 01/20/26 Page: 6 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Doc. #5, PagelD #28.
It is not immediately clear upon what basis Plaintiff claims subject matter
jurisdiction under. By indicating in the Complaint that this Court has subject matter
jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. §1343(3), Plaintiff appears to claim that Defendant was
acting under color of state law. Doc. #3, PagelD #27. However, Plaintiff offers no
facts suggesting such a finding. Likewise, the Complaint lacks information sufficient
to find that diversity jurisdiction is proper under 28 U. S. C. §1332(a)(1).
The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. §
1331 hinges on the nature of Plaintiff's claims. Yet, this issue is also murky at best.
Plaintiff invokes claims like wrongful termination, ethnic and gender discrimination,
and hostile work environment, but does so only in conclusory language, providing
no facts describing the behavior upon which those claims might rest. Conclusory
allegations are insufficient to support a valid cause of action. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U. S. 662, 663 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U. S. 544, 555 (2007)).
Instead, a valid complaint must be supported by factual allegations. Iqbal, 556 U. S.
at 664. Indeed, this Court warned Plaintiff in a prior decision that the allegations
provided in the Complaint contained merely conclusory allegations and could not
support a valid cause of action. Doc. #3, PagelD #23 n. 1. As a result, these claims,
to the extent they were actually asserted in the Complaint, are not plausibly claimed
such that relief could be granted.
Case: 3:25-cv-00259-WHR-CHG Doc #: 15 Filed: 01/20/26 Page: 7 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Plaintiff's Complaint, as filed, cannot validly state a claim upon which relief
could be granted and must be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Moreover,
because Plaintiff cannot make out a claim sufficient to grant this Court jurisdiction
over the matter under 28 U. S. C. 1331, dismissal is also warranted under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(1).
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court SUSTAINS Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss. Doc. #8.
The Court's dismissal is without prejudice to the filing of an Amended
Complaint within twenty-eight (28) days of this Decision and Entry, consistent with
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and this Court's opinion. Should Plaintiff fail to file such aa
pleading, the matter will be dismissed without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(1).
Date: January 16, 2026 f<L^V //. ^tjt.
WALTER H. RICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
Case: 3:25-cv-00259-WHR-CHG Doc #: 15 Filed: 01/20/26 Page: 8 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>