Summary
The Southern District of Texas granted General Motors's motion to dismiss Danh Cong Le's third amended complaint. The court dismissed the action with prejudice under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6), finding that Le repeatedly failed to properly serve General Motors and failed to plausibly plead negligence, gross negligence, and breach-of-warranty claims. The court concluded that further amendment would be futile.
Holdings
- Service was ineffective because Le, as a party, could not personally serve General Motors, and he otherwise failed to show proper service of the operative third amended complaint. Emailing the complaint to General Motors's local counsel was also insufficient.
- Dismissal with prejudice was warranted because Le repeatedly failed to properly serve General Motors, failed to show good cause, and failed to comply with the court's prior order despite a final opportunity to amend.
- The third amended complaint failed to plausibly plead negligence or gross negligence against General Motors. The negligence allegations concerned repairs by independent dealerships and did not allege General Motors's involvement or control; the complaint also lacked nonconclusory allegations establishing gross negligence.
- The breach-of-warranty claim failed because Le did not allege that he provided General Motors with the required pre-suit notice.
Questions Presented
- Whether the action should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(5) because Le failed to properly serve General Motors with the summons and operative complaint.
- Whether dismissal with prejudice was warranted after Le failed to comply with the court's prior service instructions and had been given a final opportunity to amend.
- Whether the third amended complaint plausibly stated negligence or gross-negligence claims against General Motors.
- Whether the third amended complaint plausibly stated a breach-of-warranty claim despite failing to allege pre-suit notice.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (28)
- Quinn v. Miller, 470 F. App'x 321, 323 (5th Cir. 2012)(followed)
- Holly v. Metropolitan Transit Authority, 213 F. App'x 343, 344 (5th Cir. 2007)(followed)
- Carimi v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., 959 F.2d 1344, 1346 (5th Cir. 1992)(followed)
- Aetna Bus. Credit, Inc. v. Universal Decor & Interior Design, 635 F.2d 434, 435 (5th Cir. 1981)(followed)
- Harris v. HireRight LLC, No. 3:23-CV-01679-E, 2024 WL 4805375, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 15, 2024)(followed)
- Crittendon v. Tex. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Civ. Action No. H-19-1624, 2019 WL 5927261, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 12, 2019)(followed)
- Avdeef v. Royal Bank of Scot., P.L.C., 616 F. App'x 665, 672 (5th Cir. 2015)(followed)
- Shabazz v. City of Hous., 515 F. App'x 263, 264 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam)(followed)
- Craig v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Civ. Action No. 9:21-CV-043, 2021 WL 5501794, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 26, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 5493362 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 22, 2021)(followed)
- Lane v. Halliburton, 529 F.3d 548, 565 (5th Cir. 2008)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 28.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…