Brown et al v. Crow et al

Filing 200

Order Accepting 196 Findings and Recommendations re: 171 MOTION to Dismiss [Second] Amended Complaint and Brief in Support. The court grants the Motion to Dismiss, and dismisses with prejudice Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Citigroup, Inc. (Ordered by Judge Sam A. Lindsay on 1/18/2023) (ndt)

Case 3:21-cv-02998-L-BT Document 200 Filed 01/18/23

Page 1 of 3 PageID 2416

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
THOMAS G. BROWN and
ELLA H. BROWN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
RICHARD CROW, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§ Civil Action No. 3:21-CV-02998-L-BT
§
§
§

ORDER
On December 22, 2022, United States Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford entered the
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”)
(Doc. 196), recommending that the court grant Defendant Citigroup, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (“Motion”) (Doc. 171), and dismiss with prejudice all
claims brought by Plaintiffs Thomas and Edna Brown (“Plaintiffs”) against Citigroup. The Report
recommended dismissal because Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently allege facts to support any plausible
action against Citigroup or, as Plaintiffs argue, Ameriquest as Citigroup’s successor in interest.
Doc. 196 at 5-6. Further, Plaintiffs failed to allege any facts showing that Citigroup acted under
color of state law to deprive them of any constitutional rights. Id. at 6. Plaintiffs’ bare allegations
of conspiracy between local governments and private actors is insufficient to state a claims for
constitutional deprivation, and as such, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Id. at 7. Plaintiffs did not file objections to the Report, and the time to do so has passed.
Having reviewed the pleadings, file, record in this case, and Report, the court determines
that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of
the court. Plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient facts to allow the court to reasonably infer that
Order – Page 1

Case 3:21-cv-02998-L-BT Document 200 Filed 01/18/23

Page 2 of 3 PageID 2417

Citigroup violated their constitutional rights. Accordingly, the court grants the Motion to Dismiss,
and dismisses with prejudice Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Citigroup, Inc.
Finally, as the court has previously addressed in numerous orders in this case, the court
determines that dismissal without leave to amend is appropriate. The provision of Rule 15(a)(2) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that states “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice
so requires” is not without limitation. The decision to allow amendment of a party’s pleadings is
within the sound discretion of the district court. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962);
Norman v. Apache Corp., 19 F.3d 1017, 1021 (5th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). In determining
whether to allow an amendment of the pleadings, a court considers the following: “undue delay,
bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of
the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.” Foman, 371 U.S. at 182; Schiller v. Physicians Res.
Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 566 (5th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).
The court has already granted Plaintiffs leave to amend their claims twice (Docs. 100, 161),
and warned them that no further amendments would be allowed. Doc. 100 at 2. Plaintiffs have had
two opportunities to bring sufficient factual allegations to state a claim against Defendant
Citigroup and have failed to do so. Further, the court agrees with the Report that Plaintiffs have
stated their best case. Id. Further opportunities to amend their claims as to Citigroup would be an
inefficient use of the parties’ and the court’s resources and cause unnecessary and undue delay.
Finally, Plaintiffs failed to object to the Report’s recommendation of dismissal, despite their earlier
objections to other reports from the magistrate judge similarly recommending dismissal. Plaintiffs
have not sought leave to amend, and the court will not sua sponte grant it here. For these reasons,
the court will not allow Plaintiffs a further opportunity to amend their pleadings regarding their
claims against Citigroup.
Order – Page 2

Case 3:21-cv-02998-L-BT Document 200 Filed 01/18/23

Page 3 of 3 PageID 2418

It is so ordered this 18th day of January, 2023.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Order – Page 3