Opinion
Civil Action 4:22-cv-3750
08-21-2023
CHAZ JOUBERT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF HOUSTON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Andrew S. Hanen, United States District Judge
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Chaz Joubert (“Joubert”), April Joubert, C.J. J.r., a minor, and U'reka A., a minor, (collectively “Plaintiffs”) Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 18). Having considered the briefs and arguments of counsel, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion to for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint.
Defendant City of Houston (“Defendant”) filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 15), to which Plaintiffs responded in opposition (Doc. No. 18) and Defendant replied (Doc. No. 19). In its Motion to Dismiss, Defendant raised, among other arguments, a number of issues regarding Plaintiffs' standing and capacity to bring their case. In their Response in opposition, Plaintiffs noted that there were several “scrivener's error[s],” among other issues involving standing, that it sought to correct and requested leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 18 at 7).
Plaintiffs have essentially filed a Response in opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint within the same filing, even though it is titled solely as a Response in opposition and even though a combined filing violates this Court's rules. (See Doc. No. 24); see also Judge Hanen's Civil Procedures § 3E (“Counsel shall not combine two different and unrelated pleadings ... into the same electronically filed document”). Despite this infirmity, this Court, in the interest of resolving this issue, will address the entirety of the parties' arguments.
Plaintiffs attached a proposed Second Amended Complaint to their Response in opposition. (Doc. No. 18-2). Defendant, in its Reply, noted that it was opposed to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave. (Doc. No. 19 at 4-6).
Given that standing is a threshold issue of any case, this Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. Accordingly, Defendant's pending Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 15) is DENIED without prejudice as moot.
The Clerk is ORDERED to file the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 18-2) as the active complaint. Defendant is hereby GRANTED 21 days from today's date to file whatever response it deems appropriate.