Byram Washington, Sr. v. Dominick F. Impastato, III, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA BYRAM WASHINGTON, SR. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 24-562 DOMINICK F. IMPASTATO, III, ET AL. SECTION “O” ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is a motion1 to strike filed by Defendants Cynthia Lee Sheng, Dominick Impastato, Steven Quaintance, and Michelle Forsythe (“Defendants”).

Defendants seek to strike the portions of the Fifth Amended Complaint2 that contain allegations against them. Because the Court has already dismissed Plaintiff’s case against these four defendants, their motion to strike is denied as moot.

On March 2, 2025, the Court issued an Order3 granting pro se Plaintiff’ Byram Washington, Sr.’s (“Plaintiff”) motion4 for leave to file a Fifth Amended Complaint against fourteen individual defendants. On March 5, 2025, the Court issued an Order and Reasons5 granting the motions6 to dismiss filed by seven defendants: the four defendants bringing the present motion to strike, along with Margaret Hay, Paul Connick, and Joseph Raspanti. In that Order, the Court expressly considered the allegations not only in Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint and prior Complaints, but also those in Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Complaint. See, e.g., ECF No. 73 at 2 n.2

1 ECF No. 75.

2 ECF No. 72.

3 ECF No. 71.

4 ECF No. 14.

5 ECF No. 73.

6 ECF Nos. 22, 42, & 67. (citing ECF No. 72 (Fifth Amended Complaint)); id. at 3 n.17 (citing Fifth Amended Complaint at 7); id. at 11 n.25 (citing Fifth Amended Complaint at 4-5). The Court dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ claims against Sheng, Impastato, Quaintance, Forsythe, Hay, Connick, and Raspanti with prejudice.7 Even though Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Complaint was introduced before the Court had ruled on Defendants’ pending motions to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint, Defendants were not required to file new motions to dismiss to address the Fifth Amended Complaint. The defects raised in Defendants’ original motions remained in the new pleading. The Court addressed those defects in its Order and dismissed all claims against Defendants with prejudice. Larkin v. UnitedHealthcare Ins. Co., 2017 WL 4390418, at *2 (E.D. La. Oct. 3, 2017) (“The filing of an amended complaint does not necessarily moot a pending motion to dismiss.”); 6 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1476 (3d. ed. 2017) (“[T]he court simply may consider the motion as being addressed to the amended pleading.”). The Court’s Order and Reasons dismissing all claims with prejudice against the seven defendants included allegations and claims asserted in the Fifth Amended Complaint.

7 ECF No. 73 at 13. The Court acknowledges that, due to a clerical error, Michelle Forsythe was not terminated as a defendant on the docket. The Court directs the clerk of court to terminate this defendant and cancel any summons issued to her. ECF No. 74. The Court confirms that Hay, Connick, Sheng, Impastato, Quaintance, Forsythe, and Raspanti have all been terminated as defendants in this matter.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motion® to strike Plaintiffs Fifth Amended Complaint is DENIED AS MOOT.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 9th day of March, 2026.

BRANDON S. LONG □□□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ECF No. 75.