UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION

TIFFANY PELSIA ET AL CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:25-CV-01047

VERSUS JUDGE DAVID C. JOSEPH

EYE WONDER PHOTO ET AL MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID J. AYO

ORDER

Before the Court is a MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION filed by Defendants Eye Wander Photo, Inc.1 and its President, Aaron Hogan. (Rec. Doc. 3). Pro se Plaintiffs Tiffany Pelsia and William Irvin filed an opposition (Rec. Doc. 7). The docket contains two additional responses by Plaintiffs (Rec. Docs. 8, 12) which have been flagged as deficient. Plaintiffs have also filed a motion captioned PLAINTIFF’S [SIC] MOTION TO OPPOSE SETTING WITHOUT A DATE AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT (Rec. Doc. 9) and a motion to amend titled MOTION TO ADD PLAINTIFF. (Rec. Doc. 14). The latter motion seeks to add William Irvin as a plaintiff even though the docket already lists him as a plaintiff. In any event, the Court will construe that motion as one seeking leave to file an amended complaint which is hereby GRANTED out of an abundance of caution. In keeping with the prevailing procedure in this and a majority of courts of appeal and district courts, the MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (Rec. Doc. 3) and PLAINTIFF’S [SIC] MOTION TO OPPOSE SETTING WITHOUT A DATE AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT (Rec. Doc. 9) are, accordingly, MOOT. See, e.g., Beroid v. LaFleur,

(W.D. La. Jan. 24, 2022), adopted by,

(W.D. La. Feb. 8, 2022);

1 Eye Wander asserts that the Complaint incorrectly refers to it as Eye Wonder Photo. (Rec. Doc. 3, p. 1). Deshotel v. PayPal, Inc.,

(W.D. La. Aug. 22, 2019); Probado Techs. Corp. v. Smartnet, Inc.,

(8.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2010). It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file their amended complaint on or before October 25, 2025. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.6.1, any such amended complaint must restate all claims and allegations in full and must not incorporate any prior pleading by reference. No further amended pleadings will be permitted. ORDERED that Defendants may renew their motion to dismiss if appropriate, may adopt the arguments contained in its first motion by reference, and may supplement such arguments if appropriate. Should Defendants file such renewed motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs shall file any desired opposition within TEN DAYS of such filing. Defendants may file any desired reply within SEVEN DAYS of the filing of any opposition by Defendants. No further briefs/memoranda will be permitted. ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ deficient filings (Rec. Docs. 8, 12) are STRICKEN. ORDERED that the Clerk of Court provide Plaintiffs with a consent to receive electronic service form and copies of this order at their address of record. Plaintiffs are directed to complete and return the consent form to the Clerk of Court if they wish to receive notice of filings electronically. Signed in Lafayette, Louisiana, this 25 day of September, 2025.

United States Magistrate Judge