Park Lane Pizzeria Inc v. Northwood PL Holdings LP

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
PARK LANE PIZZERIA, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
NORTHWOOD PL HOLDINGS LP,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:25-CV-02513-X
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Northwood PL Holdings LP’s (Northwood
Holdings) motion to dismiss (Motion). (Doc. 7). After reviewing the relevant filings
and applicable law, the Court DENIES Northwood Holding’s Motion.
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a complaint must “state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.”1 The complaint must allege sufficient facts “to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”2 And there must be enough facts for the
Court to be able to “draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.”3 In its evaluation, the Court construes the complaint liberally
in favor of the plaintiff and accepts all well pled facts in the complaint as true.4 But
conclusory statements or legal conclusions are not credited.5
1 FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6).
2 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
3 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
4 Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498 (5th Cir. 2000).
5 See Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678.
Case 3:25-cv-02513-X Document 13 Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
This case concerns a landlord-tenant dispute where the tenant, Park Lane
Pizzeria, Inc., d/b/a Grimaldi’s (Grimaldi’s), claims that the landlord, Northwood
Holdings, has continually violated the parties’ lease agreement (Lease). Specifically,
Grimaldi’s alleges that Northwood Holdings “repeatedly promised but continually
failed to supply Grimaldi’s with the condenser water required for the proper operation
of Grimaldi’s HVAC system.”6
Northwood Holdings filed this Motion contending that Grimaldi’s claims
should be dismissed because the claims are barred by the statute of limitations.
Grimaldi’s counters that the Lease is a continuing contract and the breach of which
did not occur until Northwood Holdings repudiated the Lease in October 2023.
“While the court can consider a statute of limitations argument on a Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, such a motion cannot be granted unless the limitations
defense is clear on the face of the complaint.”7 Here, because Grimaldi’s pled the
parties’ Lease is a continuing contract and Northwood Holdings repudiated the Lease
in October 2023, the Court is unable to find on the face of Grimaldi’s company a clear
indication that its claims are barred by the statute of limitations.8
6 Doc. 1 at 1.
7 Seghers v. El Bizri, 513 F. Supp. 2d 694, 707 (N.D. Tex. 2007) (Fish, J.) (citing Jones v. Alcoa,
Inc., 339 F.3d 359, 366 (5th Cir.2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1161 (2004)).
8 To the extent the applicability of the continuing-contract doctrine to Grimaldi’s claims
presents a question of law, it is more appropriately addressed on a motion for summary judgment,
after the record has been developed. Conversely, if the statute-of-limitations issue turns on fact-bound
questions—such as the existence of a continuing lease obligation or the timing of any alleged
repudiation—those issues are not suitable for resolution at the pleading stage and may ultimately be
reserved for the fact-finder. See Berry v. Bryan Cave LLP, 2010 WL 1946264, at *5 (N.D. Tex. 2010)
(Boyle. J.).
Case 3:25-cv-02513-X Document 13 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
Accordingly, Northwood Holding’s Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of February, 2026.
BRANTLEY STARR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-02513-X Document 13 Filed 02/09/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>