Otero v. Advocacy Center, 18-13404. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Number: infdco20190520773
Visitors: 10
Filed: May 16, 2019
Latest Update: May 16, 2019
Summary: ORDER & REASONS BARRY W. ASHE , District Judge . On April 30, 2019, defendants The Advocacy Center of Louisiana ("Advocacy Center"), Lois V. Simpson ("Simpson"), and Ronald K. Lospennato ("Lospennato") (collectively "Defendants") filed a motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking dismissal of all of plaintiff's claims against Simpson and Lospennato, and plaintiff's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against the Advocacy Center. 1 The m
Summary: ORDER & REASONS BARRY W. ASHE , District Judge . On April 30, 2019, defendants The Advocacy Center of Louisiana ("Advocacy Center"), Lois V. Simpson ("Simpson"), and Ronald K. Lospennato ("Lospennato") (collectively "Defendants") filed a motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking dismissal of all of plaintiff's claims against Simpson and Lospennato, and plaintiff's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against the Advocacy Center. 1 The mo..
More
ORDER & REASONS
BARRY W. ASHE, District Judge.
On April 30, 2019, defendants The Advocacy Center of Louisiana ("Advocacy Center"), Lois V. Simpson ("Simpson"), and Ronald K. Lospennato ("Lospennato") (collectively "Defendants") filed a motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking dismissal of all of plaintiff's claims against Simpson and Lospennato, and plaintiff's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against the Advocacy Center.1 The motion was set for submission on May 23, 2019.2 Local Rule 7.5 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana requires that a memorandum in opposition to a motion must be filed no later than eight days before the noticed submission date, which was May 15, 2019. Plaintiff Concepcion Otero, who is proceeding pro se, but is an attorney, has not filed a memorandum in opposition to the aforementioned motion to dismiss.
Accordingly, because the motion to dismiss is unopposed, and it appearing to the Court that the motion has merit,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss (R. Doc. 12) is GRANTED as unopposed, and all of plaintiff's claims against Simpson and Lospennato are DISMISSED with prejudice, and plaintiff's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against the Advocacy Center is DISMISSED with prejudice.
FootNotes
1. R. Doc. 12.
2. R. Doc. 17.
Source: Leagle
