Hamilton v. Citimortgage, Inc. et al

Filing 24

RULING granting 17 Motion for Joinder. The Court hereby adopts and incorporates its findings and reasoning from its 9/15/2014 Ruling, and hereby dismisses Defendant, Dean Morris, L.L.P., from these proceedings without prejudice. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 9/17/2014. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

DONNA RENE HAMILTON
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 14-00359-SDD-SCR
CITIMORTGAGE, INC., ET AL.

RULING
On August 19, 2014, Defendant, Dean Morris, L.L.P., filed a Motion for Joinder1
with Defendant Citimortgage’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim2. The
Court hereby GRANTS Dean Morris’ Motion for Joinder3. Because Dean Morris has
already filed its Answer in this matter, the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim,
strictly as it pertains to Dean Morris, shall be treated as a Rule 12(c) Motion for a
Judgment on the Pleadings Based Upon a Failure to State a Claim.4 Nonetheless, “[a]
motion under Rule 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings is subject to the same standards
as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).”5

1

Rec. Doc. 17.
Rec. Doc. 10.
3
Rec. Doc. 17.
4
Lucas v. Cannon, 2013 WL 494124 n. 1 (M.D.La. Aug. 13, 2013)(“a district court is authorized to treat
an untimely Rule 12(b)(6) motion [one filed after an Answer has been filed] as a Rule 12(c) motion for
judgment on the pleadings based upon a failure to state a claim.” (citing Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d
322, 324 (5th Cir. 1999)).
5
Purvis v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc., 901 F.SUpp.2d 716, 719 (M.D.La. 2012)(quoting In re Great
Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., LLC, 634 F. 3d 201, 209 (5th Cir. 2010).
2

Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts and incorporates its findings and reasoning
from its September 15, 2014 Ruling,6 and hereby dismisses Defendant, Dean Morris,
L.L.P., from these proceedings without prejudice.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on September 17, 2014.

S

JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

6

In its September 15, 2014, Ruling, the Court explained because Plaintiff failed to file an opposition to
Citimortgage’s Motion to Dismiss as required by Local Rule 7.4M, and after further finding that the Motion
to Dismiss had merit, the Court granted Citimortgage’s motion. However, the Court further ruled that any
response to its Ruling based on appropriate Rules of Federal Civil Procedure “shall be filed within
fourteen (14) days and must be accompanied by an opposition memorandum to the original motion.”
Rec. Doc. 23.