Mulvey v. Vertafore Inc.

Full title: AARON MULVEY, individually, and on behalf of himself and all others…

Court: United States District Court, Northern District of Texas

Date published: Feb 7, 2023

Civil Action 3:21-CV-00213-E-BN (N.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2023)

Opinion

Civil Action 3:21-CV-00213-E-BN

02-07-2023

AARON MULVEY, individually, and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. VERTAFORE INC., Defendant.

ADA BROWN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ADA BROWN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is Defendant Vertaforte Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint, which sought to dismiss Plaintiff's claims based on standing and failure to state a claim. (Doc. 47); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) (“lack of subject-matter jurisdiction”); Fed R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (“failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted”). The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in this case. Plaintiffs requested an extension of time to file objections. (Doc. 62). However, Plaintiff, thereafter, timely filed objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendation on September 6, 2022. As such, Plaintiff's requested extension, (Doc. 62), is DENIED as moot.

The District Court reviewed de novo those portions of the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding no error, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court therefore (i) DENIES Vertafore's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) but (ii) GRANTS Vertafore's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The Court shall dismiss Plaintiff's claims with prejudice by separate judgment.

Consequently, the Court DENIES as moot Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, (Doc. 23). See Conditt v. Owens, 457 Fed.Appx. 420, 422 (5th Cir. 2012) (“we also note that the dismissal of Conditt's complaint on its merits mooted any request for class certification. As a result, we also deny his motions on appeal for class-action certification and appointment of class-action counsel.”).

SO ORDERED.