Gilbert v. Driven Brand Shared Services, LLC

S.D. Texas

Gilbert v. Driven Brand Shared Services, LLC

DecidedFebruary 2, 2024

Docket4:23-cv-01747

StatusUnknown

This text of Gilbert v. Driven Brand Shared Services, LLC (Gilbert v. Driven Brand Shared Services, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gilbert v. Driven Brand Shared Services, LLC, (S.D. Tex. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

□ Southern District of Texas ENTERED February 02, 2024 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

MATTHEW GILBERT, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23-CV-01747 § DRIVEN BRAND SHARED SERVICES, § LLC, § § Defendant. § ORDER Before the Court are United States Magistrate Judge Yvonne Y. Ho’s Memorandum and Recommendation filed on December 11, 2023 (Doc. #16), Defendant Driven Brand Shared Services, LLC’s Objections (Doc. #19), and Plaintiff Matthew Gilbert’s Response (Doc. #20). The Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions are reviewed de novo. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989), Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and applicable legal authority, the Court adopts the Memorandum and Recommendation as its Order. In her Memorandum and Recommendation (““M&R”), Judge Ho recommended that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #5) be granted as to Plaintiff's common-law fraud and fraudulent inducement claims and denied as to Plaintiff's breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims. Doc. #16. Defendant objects only as to the recommendation that its Motion be denied as to the breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims. Doc. #19. First, Defendant contends that the M&R erred by ruling on the unripe legal issue regarding whether there was a valid contract or enforceable promise between Plaintiff and Defendant. Id at 4. However, this objection is overruled because the M&R repeatedly and specifically notes that Plaintiff pleaded

sufficient facts for his breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims, thus it is evident that there has not been a finding of law as to these claims. See Doc. #16 at 7, 16. Next, Defendant asserts that the M&R is clearly erroneous in finding that Plaintiff adequately alleged his breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims. Doc. #19 at 5-10. But the Court disagrees. Judge Ho’s reasoning clearly comports with the law. Compare Doc. #16, with Zenor v. El Paso Healthcare Sys., Lid., 176 F.3d 847, 862-63 (Sth Cir. 1999), and Vida y. El Paso Emps. Fed. Credit Union, 885 S.W.2d 177, 181-82 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1994). Thus, Defendant’s objections are overruled. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #5) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's common-law fraud and fraudulent inducement claims and DENIED as to Plaintiff's breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims. It is so ORDERED.

FEB 0 2 2024 . Date The Honorable Alfred H. Bennett United States Di&trict Judge

)

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

□ Southern District of Texas ENTERED February 02, 2024 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

MATTHEW GILBERT, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23-CV-01747 § DRIVEN BRAND SHARED SERVICES, § LLC, § § Defendant. § ORDER Before the Court are United States Magistrate Judge Yvonne Y. Ho’s Memorandum and Recommendation filed on December 11, 2023 (Doc. #16), Defendant Driven Brand Shared Services, LLC’s Objections (Doc. #19), and Plaintiff Matthew Gilbert’s Response (Doc. #20). The Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions are reviewed de novo. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989), Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and applicable legal authority, the Court adopts the Memorandum and Recommendation as its Order. In her Memorandum and Recommendation (““M&R”), Judge Ho recommended that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #5) be granted as to Plaintiff's common-law fraud and fraudulent inducement claims and denied as to Plaintiff's breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims. Doc. #16. Defendant objects only as to the recommendation that its Motion be denied as to the breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims. Doc. #19. First, Defendant contends that the M&R erred by ruling on the unripe legal issue regarding whether there was a valid contract or enforceable promise between Plaintiff and Defendant. Id at 4. However, this objection is overruled because the M&R repeatedly and specifically notes that Plaintiff pleaded

sufficient facts for his breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims, thus it is evident that there has not been a finding of law as to these claims. See Doc. #16 at 7, 16. Next, Defendant asserts that the M&R is clearly erroneous in finding that Plaintiff adequately alleged his breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims. Doc. #19 at 5-10. But the Court disagrees. Judge Ho’s reasoning clearly comports with the law. Compare Doc. #16, with Zenor v. El Paso Healthcare Sys., Lid., 176 F.3d 847, 862-63 (Sth Cir. 1999), and Vida y. El Paso Emps. Fed. Credit Union, 885 S.W.2d 177, 181-82 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1994). Thus, Defendant’s objections are overruled. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #5) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's common-law fraud and fraudulent inducement claims and DENIED as to Plaintiff's breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims. It is so ORDERED.

FEB 0 2 2024 . Date The Honorable Alfred H. Bennett United States Di&trict Judge

)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Gilbert v. Driven Brand Shared Services, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilbert-v-driven-brand-shared-services-llc-txsd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack