REBOOT MACON LLC v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

M.D. Georgia

REBOOT MACON LLC v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

DecidedJanuary 6, 2022

Docket5:21-cv-00221

StatusUnknown

This text of REBOOT MACON LLC v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (REBOOT MACON LLC v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

REBOOT MACON LLC v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, (M.D. Ga. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

REBOOT MACON, LLC, et al., ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:21-CV-221 (MTT) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) __________________ )

ORDER In Plaintiffs’ response to the Government’s motion to dismiss,1 Plaintiffs move the Court to convert the Government’s motion (Doc. 16) to a motion for summary judgment with the parties being given an additional period to conduct discovery. Doc. 23. The Government’s motion argues dismissal is warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Doc. 16. In support of that motion, the Government introduced a Declaration from John A. Miller, the Small Business Administration’s Deputy Associate Administrator for Capital Access. Doc. 16-2. In turn, Plaintiffs introduced an Affidavit in support of their response (Doc. 23-1) from Whitney Boyer, the majority owner of Reboot Macon, LLC, and Per Diem Market, LLC. Doc. 23- 2.

1 Plaintiffs in this consolidated action consist of Reboot Macon, LLC, and Per Diem Market, LLC. Doc. 13. Confusingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is titled “Objection to Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Discovery.” Doc. 23. Nonetheless, the contents of Plaintiffs’ motion and supporting brief (Doc. 23-1) object to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. See generally Docs. 23; 23-1. In short, the title of Plaintiffs’ motion appears to be in error. Courts generally do not consider matters outside the pleadings on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Grossman v. Nationsbank, N.A., 225 F.3d 1228, 1231 (11th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the Government to respond to Plaintiffs’ motion (Doc. 23) and explain its position on whether the Government’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 16) should be converted into a motion for summary judgment. This brief shall be filed separately from the Government’s reply, and due no later than January 28, 2022. SO ORDERED, this 6th day of January, 2022.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

REBOOT MACON, LLC, et al., ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:21-CV-221 (MTT) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) __________________ )

ORDER In Plaintiffs’ response to the Government’s motion to dismiss,1 Plaintiffs move the Court to convert the Government’s motion (Doc. 16) to a motion for summary judgment with the parties being given an additional period to conduct discovery. Doc. 23. The Government’s motion argues dismissal is warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Doc. 16. In support of that motion, the Government introduced a Declaration from John A. Miller, the Small Business Administration’s Deputy Associate Administrator for Capital Access. Doc. 16-2. In turn, Plaintiffs introduced an Affidavit in support of their response (Doc. 23-1) from Whitney Boyer, the majority owner of Reboot Macon, LLC, and Per Diem Market, LLC. Doc. 23- 2.

1 Plaintiffs in this consolidated action consist of Reboot Macon, LLC, and Per Diem Market, LLC. Doc. 13. Confusingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is titled “Objection to Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Discovery.” Doc. 23. Nonetheless, the contents of Plaintiffs’ motion and supporting brief (Doc. 23-1) object to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. See generally Docs. 23; 23-1. In short, the title of Plaintiffs’ motion appears to be in error. Courts generally do not consider matters outside the pleadings on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Grossman v. Nationsbank, N.A., 225 F.3d 1228, 1231 (11th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the Government to respond to Plaintiffs’ motion (Doc. 23) and explain its position on whether the Government’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 16) should be converted into a motion for summary judgment. This brief shall be filed separately from the Government’s reply, and due no later than January 28, 2022. SO ORDERED, this 6th day of January, 2022.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

REBOOT MACON LLC v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reboot-macon-llc-v-united-states-of-america-small-business-administration-gamd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack