Washington v. Impastato 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.
Case 2:24-cv-00562-BSL-EJD Document 77 Filed 03/09/26 Page 1 of 3

2
(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.
Case 2:24-cv-00562-BSL-EJD Document 77 Filed 03/09/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion8 to strike Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended
Complaint is DENIED AS MOOT.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 9th day of March, 2026.
BRANDON S. LONG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8 ECF No. 75.
Case 2:24-cv-00562-BSL-EJD Document 77 Filed 03/09/26 Page 3 of 3