November 14, 2025 IN TUNIHET EDS TATES-DICSOTURRITC T Nathan Ochsner, Clerk FORT HE SOUTHERN DISTORFTI ECXTA S HOUSTDOINV ISION STEVEKNOL ODGAEN D § KATLHEEKNO LODGE, § § Plaintiffs, § § CivAiclt Nioo. Hn- 25-3763 § V. § MENARDSM OVIN&G S TORAG§E , LLCe,t . al., § § Defendants. ORDER Pendbienfogtr heCe o uirDste fendGaonotd vMioevwi& n Sgt orLaLgCe' s MotitooDn i smPilsasi nVteirffisCfi'oe mdp lPauirnsttu oaF netdR ..C ivP.. 12(b)(1l2)( ba()nD(do6 c)u mNeo.n1 t2 )H.a vicnogn sitdhemero etdi on, submisansdia opnpsl,il caawtb,hlC eeo udrett ertmhitanhtepe se ndmiontgi on shobuegl rdan ted. I.BACKGROUND Thiiassc ase raenga alrldeigneogdf c obnrteIranMac achrt oc.f2h 0 2p5r,o seP laiSntteiKvffoesln o adngKdea thKloeleoned ngtee irneatcd oo ntwriatcht DefendManetn arMdosv i&nS gt orLaLgaCen G do odvMioevwi& nS gt orLaLgCe , ("Goodv"ifoiernw t"e)tr,rs atnatstipeooo ftnr h tehaioru seghooofrldodsm V erdi, Nevada to Conroe, Texas.”! Plaintiffs allege that the moving shipment contained

over $320,000.00 in personal property, “including critical medical devices, prescription medications, antique furniture, and a 1929 Kimball Grand Piano appraised at $69,000.” Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants failed to adhere to the agreed upon delivery deadline or deliver all of Plaintiffs’ property to the agreed upon final destination. Based on the foregoing, on August 12, 2025, Plaintiffs filed suit, pro se, in this Court pursuant to federal question jurisdiction alleging claims for: (1) violations of

; (2) conversion; (3) breach of bailment; (4) violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act; (5) breach of contract; (6) negligence; (7) unjust enrichment; (8) fraudulent misrepresentation; and (9) numerous RICO violations.? The Court construes all pro se filings liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007). On September 15, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with respect to Defendants Joseph Menard and Menards Moving &

. Storage, LLC, leaving only Defendant Goodview Moving & Storage, LLC

1 Plaintiffy’ Verified Complaint for Emergency Injunctive Relief and Damages, Document No. | at 3. ? Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint for Emergency Injunctive Relief and Damages, Document No. | at 3. 3 Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint for Emergency Injunctive Relief and Damages, Document No. | at 5-7.

remaining in this matter. On September 16, 2025, Goodview moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). I]. STANDARD OF REVIEW A court may dismiss an action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil procedure 12(b)(1). Once a defendant raises lack of subject matter jurisdiction in a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the Court has jurisdiction over the dispute. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,

(1994); Menchaca v. Chrysler Credit Corp.,

(Sth Cir. 1980). Where, as here, a defendant supports its argument for lack of jurisdiction with evidence, “no presumptive truthfulness attaches to plaintiff's allegations, and the existence disputed material facts will not preclude the trial court from evaluating for itself the merits of jurisdictional claims.” Williams v. r ucker,

(Sth Cir. 1981). . Rule 12(b)(6) allows dismissal if a plaintiff fails “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Under Rule 8(a)(2), a pleading □□□□ contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled _

4 See Plaintiffs’ Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, Document No. 11 at 1. 3

to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although “the pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ . . . it demands more than .. . ‘labels and conclusions.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007)). “[A] formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Jd. (quoting Twombly,

). In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, “[t]he ‘court accepts all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable

to the plaintiff.’” In re Katrina Canal Breeches Litig.,

(Sth Cir. 2007) (quoting Martin K. Eby Constr. Co. v. Dall. Area Rapid Transit,

(5th Cir. 2004)). To survive the motion, a plaintiff must plead “enough facts to

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly,

. “Conversely, ‘when the allegations in a complaint, however true, could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief, this basic deficiency should... be exposed at the point of minimum expenditure of time and money by the parties and the court.’” Cuvillier

v. Taylor,

(Sth Cir. 2007) (quoting Twombly,

). I. LAW & ANALYSIS Goodview move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint, contending that Plaintiffs’ claims are both moot’ under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), and insufficient as pled under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court construes all pro se filings liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007).

Goodview pritharily contends that Plaintiffs’ claims are rendered moot because full delivery of the Plaintiffs’ goods occurred on August 23, 2025, before service was effectuated upon Goodview. Goodview contends that the core of Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks injunctive relief to locate, disclose, and return the Plaintiffs’ goods, which no longer remain undelivered. Goodview also notes forthe -

Court attempts to compensate the Plaintiff for the delay in delivery, referencing a refund offered to Plaintiffs in the amount of $1,325.00 that was ultimately refused by the Plaintiffs. Goodview closes its argument by stating “no goods remain undelivered, no concealment, persists, and any delay is compensable per the terms of the parties’ written-agreement.”° In response, Plaintiffs concede that their goods were eventually delivered by Goodview, but further contend that several items □ arrived damaged. Plaintiffs argue that they have “photographic evidence and contemporaneous communications documenting this reckless mishandling,” yet fail □

to provide the Court any detail or specificity regarding what items were allegedly damaged during the move.°

Accordingly, based on the parties’ admissions that Plaintiffs’ property was ultimately delivered, and Plaintiffs’ failure to allege any outstanding imminent or

5 Defendant Goodview Moving & Storage LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ a Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), Document No. 12 at

® Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Document No. 15 at 7.

- irreparable harm with the necessary specificity outlined by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court determines that Plaintiffs’ eli against Goodview are moot under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Accordingly, having considered the

pending motion, submissions, -and applicable law, the Court determines that Goodview’s pending motion to dismiss should be granted.’ IV.. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Courthereby —_. ORDERS that Defendant Goodview Moving & Storage LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (Document No. 12) is GRANTED. The Court further ORDERS that Plaintiffs Steven Kolodge and Kathleen Kolodge’s claims against Defendant Menards Moving & Storage, LLC are DISMISSED. THIS IS A FINAL JUDGMENT. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this {3 day of November, 2025.

DAVID HITTNER . . United States District Judge

7 Considering the Court’s finding that Goodview’s pending motion to dismiss should be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), the Court declines to consider Goodview’s arguments related to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ‘