Jones et al v. Windtree Homeowners Association Inc et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
CLIFFORD JONES, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
V. § No. 3:25-cv-1417-L-BN
§
WINDTREE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC., THE CITY
OF DALLAS, and UNITED TOWS,
LLC,
§
§
§
§
§
Defendants. §
FINDINGS, CONLCUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court are two Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendant United
Tows LLC and Defendant Windtree Homeowner’s Association (collectively,
“Defendants”). See Dkt. Nos. 28 & 29.
This Court ordered that Defendants’ deadlines to serve their responsive
pleadings to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint [Dkt. No. 19] were stayed pending
the resolution of the motions to dismiss. See Dkt. Nos. 31 & 32.
Plaintiff Clifford Jones then filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. See
Dkt. No. 33.
The Court ordered Defendants to respond to Jones’s motion for leave by
October 6, 2025. See Dkt. No. 34.
Defendant United Tows was terminated as a party pursuant to Jones’s Notice
of Dismissal. See Dkt. No. 39. And Defendant Windtree has not responded to Jones’s
Case 3:25-cv-01417-L-BN Document 41 Filed 12/10/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

- 2 -
motion.
And, so, the undersigned considers Jones’s motion for leave without the benefit
of a response from Defendants.
Discussion
Rule 15(a) requires that leave to amend be granted freely “when justice so
requires.” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). And, because this rule provides a “strong
presumption in favor of granting leave to amend,” Fin. Acquisition Partners, LP v.
Blackwell, 440 F.3d 278, 291 (5th Cir. 2006), the Court must do so “unless there is a
substantial reason to deny leave to amend,” Dussouy v. Gulf Coast Inv. Corp., 660
F.2d 594, 598 (5th Cir. 1981).
Defendants’ motions to dismiss challenged Jones’s First Amended Complaint.
See Dkt. Nos. 28 & 29. But Jones’s proposed Second Amended Complaint purports to
correct the jurisdictional issues that formed the basis of Defendants’ motions to
dismiss by adding, for example, a Fourteenth Amendment claim against Defendant
Windtree and Defendant The City of Dallas. See Dkt. No. 33.
And, so, the undersigned finds that Jones should be granted leave to amend
his complaint.
The undersigned finds that, because United Tows is no longer a party to this
lawsuit, its motion to dismiss is moot. See Dkt. No. 39. And, because Windtree’s
motion to dismiss challenges the First Amended Complaint, it is also moot. See Dkt.
No. 29.
Case 3:25-cv-01417-L-BN Document 41 Filed 12/10/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

- 3 -
Recommendation
The Court should grant Jones’s motion for leave to amend [Dkt. No. 33]. And
the Clerk of the Court should be ordered to enter the attached proposed Second
Amended Complaint [Dkt. No. 33 at 5-174] as the live pleading.
The pending motions to dismiss [Dkt. Nos. 28 & 29] should be denied as moot.
Defendant Windtree and Defendant City of Dallas should be ordered to their file
responsive pleadings to the Second Amended Complaint by a reasonable deadline to
be set by the Court.
A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on
all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these
findings, conclusions, and recommendation must file specific written objections
within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV.
P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or
recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and
specify the place in the magistrate judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendation
where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by
reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure
to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the
factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or
adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v.
United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).
Case 3:25-cv-01417-L-BN Document 41 Filed 12/10/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

- 4 -
DATED: December 10, 2025
_______________________________________
DAVID L. HORAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-01417-L-BN Document 41 Filed 12/10/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>