Dixon v. US Bank

E.D. Louisiana

Dixon v. US Bank

DecidedApril 28, 2022

Docket2:21-cv-01924

StatusUnknown

This text of Dixon v. US Bank (Dixon v. US Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dixon v. US Bank, (E.D. La. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LANDRY DIXON CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 21-1924

U.S. BANK, et al. SECTION: M (3)

ORDER & REASONS On March 30, 2022, defendants U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) and various officers and members of its board of directors, namely, Andy Cecere, Warner L. Baxter, Elizabeth L. Buse, Kimberly N. Ellison-Taylor, Chris Taylor, Dorothy J. Bridges, Kimberly J. Harris, and Roland A. Hernandez (collectively, “Defendants”), filed a motion to dismiss under Rules 8, 9(b), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to plead a claim, failure to plead fraud with specificity, and improper service on the individual defendants.1 The motion was set for submission on May 5, 2022.2 Local Rule 7.5 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana requires that a memorandum in opposition to a motion must be filed no later than eight days before the noticed submission date, which deadline in this instance was April 27, 2022. The Court notes that plaintiff Landry Dixon is proceeding pro se. Although the Court construes pro se filing liberally, pro se parties are still required to “abide by the rules that govern the federal courts.” EEOC v. Simbaki, Ltd., 767 F.3d 475, 484 (5th Cir. 2014). Dixon has not filed a memorandum in opposition to Defendants’ motion. Accordingly, because the motion to dismiss is unopposed and appears to have merit,3

1 R. Doc. 11. 2 R. Doc. 11-2. 3 Dixon appears to allege that U.S. Bank mishandled his accounts. However, the complaint is vague, rambling, and fails to identify, with any context, the claims it purports to assert. In sum, Dixon’s complaint does not comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which requires a short, plain statement of the claim showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief, or Rule 9(b) which requires fraud to be pleaded with particularity. IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 28th day of April, 2022.

________________________________ BARRY W. ASHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LANDRY DIXON CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 21-1924

U.S. BANK, et al. SECTION: M (3)

ORDER & REASONS On March 30, 2022, defendants U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) and various officers and members of its board of directors, namely, Andy Cecere, Warner L. Baxter, Elizabeth L. Buse, Kimberly N. Ellison-Taylor, Chris Taylor, Dorothy J. Bridges, Kimberly J. Harris, and Roland A. Hernandez (collectively, “Defendants”), filed a motion to dismiss under Rules 8, 9(b), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to plead a claim, failure to plead fraud with specificity, and improper service on the individual defendants.1 The motion was set for submission on May 5, 2022.2 Local Rule 7.5 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana requires that a memorandum in opposition to a motion must be filed no later than eight days before the noticed submission date, which deadline in this instance was April 27, 2022. The Court notes that plaintiff Landry Dixon is proceeding pro se. Although the Court construes pro se filing liberally, pro se parties are still required to “abide by the rules that govern the federal courts.” EEOC v. Simbaki, Ltd., 767 F.3d 475, 484 (5th Cir. 2014). Dixon has not filed a memorandum in opposition to Defendants’ motion. Accordingly, because the motion to dismiss is unopposed and appears to have merit,3

1 R. Doc. 11. 2 R. Doc. 11-2. 3 Dixon appears to allege that U.S. Bank mishandled his accounts. However, the complaint is vague, rambling, and fails to identify, with any context, the claims it purports to assert. In sum, Dixon’s complaint does not comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which requires a short, plain statement of the claim showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief, or Rule 9(b) which requires fraud to be pleaded with particularity. IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 28th day of April, 2022.

________________________________ BARRY W. ASHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Dixon v. US Bank, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dixon-v-us-bank-laed-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack