Mulvey v. Vertafore Inc

N.D. Texas

Mulvey v. Vertafore Inc

DecidedFebruary 7, 2023

Docket3:21-cv-00213

StatusUnknown

This text of Mulvey v. Vertafore Inc (Mulvey v. Vertafore Inc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mulvey v. Vertafore Inc, (N.D. Tex. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

AARON MULVEY, § individually, and on behalf of himself and all § others similarly situated individuals, § § Plaintiff, § Civil Action No. 3:21-CV-00213-E-BN § v. § § VERTAFORE INC., § § Defendant. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is Defendant Vertaforte Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, which sought to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims based on standing and failure to state a claim. (Doc. 47); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) (“lack of subject-matter jurisdiction”); Fed R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (“failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted”). The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in this case. Plaintiffs requested an extension of time to file objections. (Doc. 62). However, Plaintiff, thereafter, timely filed objections to the United States Magistrate Judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation on September 6, 2022. As such, Plaintiff’s requested extension, (Doc. 62), is DENIED as moot. The District Court reviewed de novo those portions of the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding no error, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court therefore (i) DENIES Vertafore’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) but (ii) GRANTS Vertafore’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The Court shall dismiss Plaintiffs claims with prejudice by separate judgment. Consequently, the Court DENIES as moot Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification, (Doc. 23). See Conditt v. Owens, 457 F. App’x 420, 422 (Sth Cir. 2012) (“we also note that the dismissal of Conditt's complaint on its merits mooted any request for class certification. As a result, we also deny his motions on appeal for class-action certification and appointment of class-action counsel.’’). SO ORDERED. 7th day of February, 2023.

QOK ern. ADA BROWN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND) sssi—‘i—sSSS RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Page 2 of 2

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

AARON MULVEY, § individually, and on behalf of himself and all § others similarly situated individuals, § § Plaintiff, § Civil Action No. 3:21-CV-00213-E-BN § v. § § VERTAFORE INC., § § Defendant. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is Defendant Vertaforte Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, which sought to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims based on standing and failure to state a claim. (Doc. 47); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) (“lack of subject-matter jurisdiction”); Fed R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (“failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted”). The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in this case. Plaintiffs requested an extension of time to file objections. (Doc. 62). However, Plaintiff, thereafter, timely filed objections to the United States Magistrate Judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation on September 6, 2022. As such, Plaintiff’s requested extension, (Doc. 62), is DENIED as moot. The District Court reviewed de novo those portions of the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding no error, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court therefore (i) DENIES Vertafore’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) but (ii) GRANTS Vertafore’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The Court shall dismiss Plaintiffs claims with prejudice by separate judgment. Consequently, the Court DENIES as moot Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification, (Doc. 23). See Conditt v. Owens, 457 F. App’x 420, 422 (Sth Cir. 2012) (“we also note that the dismissal of Conditt's complaint on its merits mooted any request for class certification. As a result, we also deny his motions on appeal for class-action certification and appointment of class-action counsel.’’). SO ORDERED. 7th day of February, 2023.

QOK ern. ADA BROWN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND) sssi—‘i—sSSS RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Page 2 of 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Mulvey v. Vertafore Inc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mulvey-v-vertafore-inc-txnd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack