Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

GARON JACKSON, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 25-1821

NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION SECTION: N

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is Defendant Navy Federal Credit Union’s Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss “the claims asserted against them [sic] in

the Complaint, Rec. Doc. No. 1 . . . .”1 Plaintiffs Garon Jackson and Cierra Jackson,

proceeding pro se, have not filed an opposition. Having considered the Motion, the

record, and the applicable law, the Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for

the reasons that follow.

I. Factual Background

Plaintiffs filed this action pro se, asserting claims arising from Navy Federal

Credit Union’s alleged failure to provide complete and accurate mortgage servicing

information in response to Plaintiffs’ written requests.2 Judge Nannette Jolivette

Brown denied Navy Federal Credit Union’s first motion to dismiss without prejudice,

granting Plaintiffs leave to amend.3

1 R. Doc. 24 at p.1.

2 R. Doc. 1-2.

3 R. Doc. 12 (Judge Brown’s Order and Reasons); R. Doc. 9 (first motion to dismiss).

Plaintiffs’ case was subsequently transferred to this Court and,4 on April 16,

2026, they filed their First Amended Complaint.5 The First Amended Complaint

asserts two counts: (1) a violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act

(RESPA), 12 U.S.C. § 2605, and its implementing regulation, Regulation X, 12 C.F.R.

§ 1024.36, arising from Navy Federal Credit Union’s allegedly incomplete June 3,

2025, response to Plaintiffs’ written request for servicing information; and (2)

Louisiana fraud/misrepresentation under article 1953 of the Louisiana Civil Code,

based on Navy Federal Credit Union’s representations in that same response.6

Plaintiffs also seek declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202, tied to Navy

Federal Credit Union’s ongoing servicing obligations.7

II. Law and Analysis

Although Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition, under Fifth Circuit precedent,

courts generally should not grant a motion to dismiss solely because it is unopposed,

without considering the merits of the arguments.8 As an initial matter, the Motion

itself states that Navy Federal Credit Union seeks to dismiss “the claims asserted

against them [sic] in the Complaint, Rec. Doc. No. 1 . . . .”9 But “Rec. Doc. No. 1” is

Plaintiffs’ original state court petition,10 which is not the operative pleading. The

operative pleading is the First Amended Complaint filed on April 16, 2026,11 which

4 R. Doc. 13.

5 R. Doc. 18.

6 Id. at pp. 2-3 ¶¶ 20-34.

7 Id. at p. 3 ¶¶ 35-38.

8 Webb v. Morella, 457 F. App’x 448, 452 & n.4 (5th Cir. 2012) (discussing precedent).

9 R. Doc. 24 at p.1.

10 R. Doc. 1-2.

11 R. Doc. 18.

is never cited in Navy Federal Credit Union’s Motion to Dismiss or supporting

Memorandum.12 Put simply, the Motion does not identify the correct pleading as the

target of dismissal.

This is not merely a typographical error. The Motion and supporting

Memorandum proceed to address, inter alia, claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,13

the Truth in Lending Act,14 “Unconscionable terms,”15 “Lack of full disclosure,”16 and

“Bill in Equity.”17 None of these claims appear in the operative First Amended

Complaint.18 As set forth above, the First Amended Complaint asserts only the

RESPA/Regulation X count and the Louisiana fraud count, along with a request for

declaratory relief tied to the RESPA count.19

Plaintiffs’ failure to oppose the Motion is unsurprising because the Motion is

directed at the wrong complaint and its arguments largely do not correspond to the

claims Plaintiffs actually assert, leaving Plaintiffs with little to which they could

meaningfully respond. Because the Motion is directed substantially at claims not

before the Court and fails to adequately address the sufficiency of the claims that are,

the Court cannot conclude on this record that dismissal with prejudice is warranted.

12 R. Docs. 24 and 24-1.

13 R. Doc. 24-1 at p. 5.

14 Id.

15 Id. at p. 6.

16 Id.

17 Id. at p. 7.

18 R. Doc. 18.

19 Id. at pp. 2-3 ¶¶ 20-38. And while the Motion does address RESPA and article 1953 of the Louisiana

Civil Code (fraud), it does so only briefly and interspersed with nonexistent claims, and without

addressing Regulation X. Specifically, the Motion addresses the RESPA claim in connection with the

non-existent Truth in Lending Act claim, and fraud with the non-existent “Unconscionable terms[]

and Lack of full disclosure” claims. R. Doc. 24-1 at pp. 2-3.

III. Conclusion

IT IS ORDERED that Navy Federal Credit Union’s Motion to Dismiss?° is

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling a motion that addresses the claims

actually asserted in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 28th day of July, 2026.

ANNA ST. JOHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20 R. Doc. 24.