Schroeder et al v. American Modern Property and Casualty Insurance Company

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JILL SCHROEDER and TEXAS PERMIT
CONSULTANTS, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
AMERICAN MODERN PROPERTY AND
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
ORDER
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:24-cv-4566
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Jill Schroeder and Texas Permit Consultants, LLC's
Partial Motion for Summary Judgment for Declaratory Judgment. (Doc. No. 	16). Defendant
American Modern Property and Casualty Insurance Company responded in opposition, (Doc. No.
19), and no reply was filed. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion.
This insurance dispute arises from a boat-on-boat collision on Lake Conroe in Montgomery
County, Texas. (Doc. No. 1-3 at 3). Plaintiffs allege that Defendant unlawfully denied them
insurance coverage for their boat and any bodily and property damage to the other boat and
passengers. (Id. at 3--4). As such, they filed their Original Petition in the 269th District Court of
Harris County, Texas. (Id.). Defendant timely removed the case to this Court. (Doc. No. 1).
Plaintiffs' Original Petition brought the following causes of action against Defendant:
(1) breach of contract, (2) violation of the Texas Insurance Code Chapters 541 and 542, (3) bad
faith denial of coverage, and (3) Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act violations. (Doc. No. 1-3 at
5-9). Plaintiffs seek "actual damages, consequential damages, 	exemplary damages, mental
anguish, attorney's fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by this Court." (Id. at 9). Notably
absent from Plaintiffs' Original Petition is any mention of or claims for declaratory relief. See (id.).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 23, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:24-cv-04566 Document 31 Filed 03/23/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

Now, Plaintiffs' move this Court to enter declaratory judgment in their favor. Specifically,
Plaintiff requests this Court issue "a declaratory judgment finding that the exclusion for 'dishonest
or illegal acts' under Policy No. 103-655-426 does not apply to the claims arising from the October
14, 2023 incident." (Doc. No. 16 at 10).
After they filed their Motion for Summary Judgment, (perhaps recognizing the present
issue), Plaintiffs moved the Court for leave to file an Amended Petition. (Doc. No. 20). The
Amended Petition contained claims for declaratory relief, including that relief sought in Plaintiffs'
Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. No. 20-2 at 8-11) (adding Count V asking for "a declaratory
judgment declaring the rights of the parties under the contract"). Subsequently, the Court denied
Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend. (Doc. No. 29). Accordingly, the live pleading in this case
is Plaintiffs' Original Petition, which contains no claims or mention of the requested declaratory
relief.
As a result, this Court cannot grant summary judgment to Plaintiffs. "Summary judgment
cannot be entered on a claim not pleaded in the complaint, as that claim is not fairly before the
Court." La Union def Pueblo Entero v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 141 F. Supp. 3d 681, 697
(S.D. Tex. 2015) (citing Quintanilla v. Tex. Television, Inc., 139 F.3d 494, 498-99 (5th Cir. 1998));
Solferini as Tr. ofCorradi Sp.A . v. Corradi USA, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-00293, 2020 WL 1511315
(E.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2020), ajf'd, No. 20-40645, 2021 WL 3619905 (5th Cir. Aug. 13, 2021)
(denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on a new claim that was not asserted in
plaintiff's complaint). Therefore, any claim for declaratory relief is not before this Court, as
Plaintiff's live Petition contains no request or claims for declaratory relief.
The Court also notes that in between the filing of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment
and the filing of this Order, Plaintiffs' counsel filed a Motion to Withdraw, which this Court
2
Case 4:24-cv-04566 Document 31 Filed 03/23/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

granted. (Doc. Nos. 26, 27, 28). This Court cautions Plaintiffs that Jill Schroeder may proceed pro
se in this matter, but Permit Consultants, LLC, as a limited liability company, must obtain new
counsel licensed to practice before this Court. See, e.g. , Rowland v. California Men s Colony, 506
U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993) (" [T]he lower courts have uniformly held that 28 U.S.C. § 1654 . . . does
not allow corporations, partnerships, or associations to appear in federal court otherwise than by
licensed counsel." ). An LLC must be represented by an attorney, and cannot be represented by an
individual, even if that individual is an executive officer or managing member.
For 	the 	foregoing 	reasons, 	Plaintiffs' 	Partial 	Motion 	for 	Summary 	Judgment 	for
Declaratory Judgment (Doc. No. 16) is DENIED.
It is so ordered.
/-
Signed on this the )-1 	day of March, 2026.
Andrew S. Hanen
United States District Judge
3
Case 4:24-cv-04566 Document 31 Filed 03/23/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3