Hazelhurst et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA
Filing
13
Order Accepting 11 Findings and Recommendations on Motion. The court grants Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (Doc. 7), filed 1/23/2014, and dismisses with prejudice Plaintiffs' claims based on state constitutional violations and breach of contract and their request for a declaratory judgment. The court strikes Defendant's Original Counterclaim. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 7/31/2014) (jrr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
WENDY HAZELHURST AND
BORNIO INVESTMENTS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-4605-L
ORDER
This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Paul D. Stickney, who entered the Findings,
Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) on July 14,
2014 (Doc. 11), recommending that the court grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’
Amended Complaint (Doc. 7), filed January 23, 2014, and dismiss with prejudice Plaintiffs’ claims
based on state constitutional violations and breach of contract and their request for a declaratory
judgment. No objections to the Report were filed.
Having reviewed the pleadings, file, and record in this case, and the Report, the court
determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct and accepts them
as those of the court. Accordingly, the court grants Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’
Amended Complaint (Doc. 7), filed January 23, 2014, and dismisses with prejudice Plaintiffs’
Order – Page 1
claims based on state constitutional violations and breach of contract and their request for a
declaratory judgment.*
It is so ordered this 31st day of July, 2014.
_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge
*
After the magistrate judge issued his Report on Defendant’s motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), Defendant filed its Original Counterclaim on July 23, 2014, seeking a declaratory judgment and
asserting various claims for relief against Plaintiffs. As Defendant’s counterclaim was filed without leave of court long
after Plaintiffs amended their pleadings on January 14, 2014, and after the magistrate judge issued a Report in their favor
on the motion to dismiss, the counterclaim is not before the court, and the court declines to consider it or delay the
resolution of this litigation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i) (requiring service of a responsive pleading 21 days after
service of the complaint). Further, Defendant offers no explanation for the delay or failure to seek leave. For these
reasons, the court strikes Defendant’s Original Counterclaim (Doc. 12).
Order – Page 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?