Lee v. D.R. Horton, Inc.

• Court: District Court, M.D. Louisiana
• Decided: April 11, 2022
• Docket: 3:21-cv-00442
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LINDSEY LEE, ET. AL CIVIL ACTION VERSUS 21-442-SDD-EWD D.R. HORTON, INC—GULF COAST, ET. AL RULING AND ORDER There are two Motions pending before the Court. Defendants Acadian Trace HOA, Inc., D.R. Horton, Inc., D.R. Horton, Inc. - Gulf Coast, George Kurz, Jake Lambert, David Stanton (“Defendants”) filed a Motion to Dismiss! the Amended and Restated Complaint.” All Plaintiffs joined in filing an Opposition. Also pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(B)(4),(5),(6), Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to FRCP Rule 56? filed by Third-Party Defendant, La. Construction & Industry (“LCI”). After Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended and Restated Complaint.° In their Opposition, Plaintiffs urge the Court to deny as moot Defendants’ Motion due to the filing of the most recent Complaint. As this Court has recently stated, “many district courts—including those in this Circuit—routinely deny as moot motions to dismiss that are filed prior to an amendment

1 Rec. Doc. No. 34. ? Rec. Doc. No. 30. 3 Rec. Doc. No. 93. 4 Rec. Doc. No. 85. 5 Rec. Doc. No. 86.

of a complaint.” “And while a court may apply a pending Rule 12 motion to a newly amended complaint, it should nonetheless deny the pending motion as moot if that application would cause confusion or detract from the efficient resolution of the issues..." In this case, judicial efficiency will be best served by denying Defendants’ Motion, without prejudice, as moot. The Amended and Restated Complaint® that Defendants moved to dismiss is significantly different than the operative Third Amended and Restated Complaint.° The former is 55 pages in length, while the latter is 142 pages in length and includes numerous new attachments. Therefore, given the stark differences between the two Complaints, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss'® is denied, without prejudice, as moot. The Court turns to LCl’s Motion."' Local Rule 7(f) of the Middle District of Louisiana requires that memoranda in opposition to a motion be filed within twenty-one days after service of the motion. Despite this rule, Third-Party Plaintiffs D.R. Horton, Inc. and D.R. Horton, Inc — Gulf Coast (“Third-Party Plaintiffs”) have failed to timely oppose this Motion, which was electronically filed on February 18, 2022. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Court, Third-Party Plaintiffs were required to file an opposition no later than March 11, 2022. Therefore, the pending Motion is deemed to be unopposed. Further, after reviewing the record, the Court finds

Louisiana v. Bank of Am. Corp., 2020 WL 3966875, at *5 (M.D. La. July 13, 2020) (quoting Rodgers v. Gusman, 2019 WL 186669, at *2 & n.16 (E.D. La. Jan. 14, 2019) (collecting cases) (cleaned up). 7 Id. (cleaned up). 8 Rec. Doc. No. 30. ® Rec. Doc. No. 86. 19 Rec. Doc. No. 34. 1 Rec. Doc. No. 85.

that the Motion has merit, particularly because LCl’s Statement of Undisputed Facts'? must be taken as true under Local Rule 56(f). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that LCl’s Motion’? is GRANTED. Any Motions in response to this Ruling shall explain Third-Party Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Court’s deadlines and be based on the appropriate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and shall be filed within fourteen (14) days and must be accompanied by opposition memoranda to the original Motion. Additionally, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Motion to Dismiss" is denied, without prejudice, as moot. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 11th day of April, 2022.

SHELLY 5 Bice CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

12 Rec. Doc. No. 85-3. 13 Rec. Doc. No. 85. 14 Rec. Doc. No. 34.