Workers of America, “a complaint was deemed sufficient to plead a certain legal theory without ever specifically mentioning that theory, when ‘[a]ll the necessary averments were present in the complaint to bring [that] claim.’ ” Konstantinov v. Findlay Ford Lincoln Mercury, 2006 WL 3299487, *3 (E.D.Mich.2006) (citing Ritchie v. United Mine Workers of America, 410 F.2d 827, 832 (6th Cir.1969)). Where ACM does not assert a cause of action recognized at law, the Court may construe ACM’s allegations liberally, determining what causes of action ACM may pursue given the facts and arguments put forward in its pleadings. The Court should look at the substantive law of Texas to determine where a cause of action may he. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 77, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938) (<HOLDING>). In this case, ACM seeks relief for trespass,
holding that federal courts must apply state substantive law in diversity cases holding that a federal court in diversity jurisdiction must apply state substantive law holding that in diversity cases federal courts are to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law holding that federal courts should apply state substantive law holding that federal courts presiding over causes of action created by state law should apply state substantive law but federal procedural law