Paul v. Pepperidge Farm

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: October 16, 2025
• Docket: 25-20067
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-20067 Document: 48-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/16/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-20067 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ October 16, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce Denise Paul, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated, a Connecticut Corporation doing business in Connecticut,

Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:24-CV-4720 ______________________________

Before Elrod, Chief Judge, and Smith and Stewart, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * We have reviewed the briefing in this case and have found no error, let alone reversible error. The district court appropriately granted the motion to dismiss, as Appellant failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. See Fed. R.

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-20067 Document: 48-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/16/2025

No. 25-20067

Civ. P. 12(b)(6); see also, e.g., N. Nat. Gas Co. v. Conoco, Inc., 986 S.W.2d 603, 607 (Tex. 1998) (promise of future action constitutes consideration). The district court did not err in dismissing the claims with prejudice, as the complaint was futile under well-established legal principles—as Appellant had already pled her best case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in preventing further suit. Cf. Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 768 (5th Cir. 2009). On the issue of timeliness, the district court correctly calculated the deadline for Appellant’s response under its own local rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Southern District of Texas Local Rules 7.3 and 7.4(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d); Halicki v. Louisiana Casino Cruises, Inc., 151 F.3d 465, 467–468 (5th Cir. 1998) (three-day extension for type of service only applicable when deadline is based on date of service). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion for an extension of time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b); L.A. Pub. Ins. Adjusters, Inc. v. Nelson, 17 F.4th 521, 524 (5th Cir. 2021). AFFIRMED.