Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and granted AT&T Services, Inc.’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion. The court dismissed without prejudice claims for trespass, negligence, property damage, invasion of privacy, and emotional distress arising from alleged utility work on the plaintiff’s property, allowing 30 days to amend. The court also canceled all pretrial and trial dates and deadlines.
Holdings
- Allegations raised for the first time in objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation generally are not properly before the district court and need not be considered.
- The alleged entry onto property subject to a utility servitude did not state a trespass claim where the complaint did not allege sufficient facts showing that AT&T exceeded the servitude's scope or exercised its rights in an unreasonable manner.
- Wagner failed to state a negligence claim because he did not allege facts supporting a reasonable inference that his property sustained a compensable injury.
- Wagner failed to state a property-damage claim because the complaint did not contain enough facts to create a reasonable expectation that discovery would reveal evidence that AT&T caused damage to his property.
- Wagner was allowed 30 days to amend his complaint after dismissal without prejudice.
Questions Presented
- Whether the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant AT&T's Rule 12(b)(6) motion should be adopted after de novo review.
- Whether Wagner stated a trespass claim despite the alleged utility servitude and his allegations that AT&T entered without permission or notice.
- Whether Wagner adequately pleaded negligence and property-damage claims by alleging disturbed soil, property impacts, and patched brickwork.
- Whether allegations and arguments first raised in objections to the report and recommendation were properly before the district court.
- Whether Wagner should be allowed to amend his complaint.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (6)
- Cupit v. Whitley, 28 F.3d 532, 535 n.5 (5th Cir. 1994)(followed)
- Finley v. Johnson, 243 F.3d 215, 219 n.3 (5th Cir. 2001)(followed)
- Moler v. Wells, 18 F.4th 162 (5th Cir. 2021)(followed)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(followed)
- Bourgeois v. A.P. Green Indus., Inc., 97-3188 (La. 7/8/98), 716 So. 2d 355, 357–58(followed)
- Alderson v. Concordia Par. Corr. Facility, 848 F.3d 415, 423 (5th Cir. 2017)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…