Kolodge et al v. Menards Moving & Storage, LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES-DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
STEVEN KO LODGE AND
KATHLEEN KOLODGE, §
§
Plaintiffs,
V.
MENARDS MOVING & STORAGE,
LLC, et. al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§ Civil Action No. H-25-3763
§
§
§
§
§
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant Goodview Moving & Storage LLC's
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Verified Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(l) and 12(b)(6) (Document No. 12). Having considered the motion,
submissions, and applicable law, the Court determines that the pending motion
should be granted.
I. BACKGROUND
This is a case regarding an alleged breach of contract. In March of 2025, pro
se Plaintiffs Steven Kolodge and Kathleen Kolodge entered into a contract with
Defendant Menards Moving & Storage LLC and Goodview Moving & Storage, LLC
("Goodview"), "for interstate transportation of their household goods from Verdi,
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
November 14, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-03763 Document 18 Filed on 11/13/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 6

Nevada to Conroe, Texas." 1 Plaintiffs allege that the moving shipment contained
over 	$320,000.00 	in 	personal 	property, 	"including 	critical 	medical 	devices,
prescription medications, 	antique furniture, 	and a 	1929 Kimball Grand Piano
appraised at $69,000." 2 Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants failed to adhere to
the agreed upon delivery deadline or deliver all of Plaintiffs' property to the agreed
upon final destination.
Based on the foregoing, on August 12, 2025, Plaintiffs filed suit, prose, in
this Court pursuant to federal· question jurisdiction alleging claims for: ( 1) violations
of 49 U.S.C. § 14706; (2) conversion; (3) breach ofbailment; (4) violations of the
Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act; (5) breach of contract; (6) negligence; (7)
unjust enrichment; 	(8) 	fraudulent misrepresentation; 	and 	(9) numerous 	RICO
violations. 3 The Court construes all prose filings liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). On September 15, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal with respect to Defendants Joseph Menard and Menards Moving &
. Storage, 	LLC, 	leaving 	only 	Defendant 	Goodview 	Moving 	& 	Storage, 	LLC
1 Plaintifft' Verified Complaint for Emergency Injunctive Relief and Damages,
Document No. 1 at 3.
2 Plaintifft' Verified Complaint for Emergency Injunctive Relief and Damages,
Document No. 1 at 3.
3 Plaintifft' Verified Complaint for Emergency Injunctive Relief and Damages,
Document No. 1 at 5-7.
2
Case 4:25-cv-03763 Document 18 Filed on 11/13/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 6

remaining 1n This mattei-_,r-nn- September 16, 2025, Goodview moved to dismiss
Plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(l) and
12(b)(6).
IL 	STANDARD OF REVIEW
A court may dismiss an action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(l). Once a defendant raises lack of subject
matter jurisdiction in a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(l), the plaintiff
bears the burden of establishing that the Court has jurisdiction over the dispute. See
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. ofAm., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Menchaca v.
Chrysler Credit Corp., 	613 	F.2d 507, 	511 	(5th Cir. 	1980). Where, 	as here, a
defendant 	supports •its 	argument 	for 	lack 	of jurisdiction with 	evidence, • "no
presumptive truthfulness attaches to plaintiffs allegations, and the existence of
disputed material facts will not preclude the trial court from evaluating for itself the
merits of jurisdictional claims." Williams v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404, 412-13 (5th Cir.
1981).
Rule 12(b)(6) allows dismissal if a plaintiff fails "to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Under Rule 8(a)(2), a pleading must
contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
4 See Plaintiffs' Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, Document No. 11 at 1.
3
Case 4:25-cv-03763 Document 18 Filed on 11/13/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 6

to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although "the pleading standard Rule 8 announces
does not require 'detailed factual allegations,' ... it demands more than ... 'labels
and conclusions."' Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. 	v. 	Twombly, 	550 U.S. 544, 555 {2007)). "[A] formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, " [t]he
'court accepts all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable
to the plaintiff."' In re Katrina Canal Breeches Litig, 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir.
2007) (quoting Martin K Eby Constr. Co. v. Dall. Area Rapid Transit, 369 F.3d 464,
467 (5th Cir. 2004)). To survive the motion, a plaintiff must plead "enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 	550 U.S. at 570.
"Conversely, 'when the allegations in a complaint, however true, could not raise a
claim of entitlement to relief, this basic deficiency should ... be exposed at the point
of minimum expenditure of time and money by the parties and the court.'" Cuvillier
v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 558).
III. LAW & ANALYSIS
Goodview move to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint, contending that Plaintiffs'
claims 	are 	both 	moot under Federal 	Rule 	of Civil 	Procedure 	12(b)(l), 	and
insufficient as pled under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court
construes all prose filings liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
4
Case 4:25-cv-03763 Document 18 Filed on 11/13/25 in TXSD Page 4 of 6

Goodview primarily contends that Plaintiffs' 	claims 	are rendered moot
because full delivery of the Plaintiffs' goods occurred on August 23, 2025, before
service was effectuated upon Goodview. Goodview contends that the core 	of
Plaintiffs' 	complaint seeks injunctive relief to locate, disclose, 	and return the
Plaintiffs' goods, which no longer remain undelivered. Goodview also notes for the
Court attempts to compensate the Plaintiff for the delay in delivery, referencing a
refund offered to Plaintiffs in the amount of $1,325.00 that was ultimately refused
by the Plaintiffs. 	Goodview closes its argument by stating· "no goods remain
undelivered, no concealment, persists, and any delay is compensable per the terms
of the parties' written agreement." 5 1n response, Plaintiffs concede that their goods
were eventually delivered by Goodview, but further contend that several items
arrived damaged. 	Plaintiffs argue that they have "photographic evidence and
contemporaneous communications documenting this reckless mishandling," yet fail
to provide the Court any detail or specificity regarding what items were allegedly
damaged during the move. 6
Accordingly, based on the parties' admissions that Plaintiffs' property was
ultimately delivered, and Plaintiffs' failure to allege any outstanding imminent or
5 Defendant Goodview Moving & Storage LLC 's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Verified Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(l) and J2(b)(6), Document No. 12 at
6.
6 Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Document No. 15 at 7.
5
Case 4:25-cv-03763 Document 18 Filed on 11/13/25 in TXSD Page 5 of 6

irreparable harm with the necessary specificity outlined by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Court determines that Plaintiffs' claims against Goodview are moot
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(l). Accordingly, having considered the
pending motion, 	submissions, 	and 	applicable 	law, 	the 	Court determines that
Goodview's pending motion to dismiss should be granted. 7
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Defendant Goodview Moving & Storage LLC's Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs' Verified Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(l) and
12(b)(6) (Document No. 12) is GRANTED. The Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiffs Steven Kolodge and Kathleen Kolodge' s claims
against Defendant Menards Moving & Storage, LLC are DISMISSED.
THIS IS A FINAL JUDGMENT.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this __J.3_ day of November, 2025.
3>W 	bUL:DAVID HITTNER
United States District Judge·
7 Considering the Court's finding that Goodview's pending motion to dismiss
should be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)( 1)~ the Court declines
to consider Goodview's arguments related to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
6
Case 4:25-cv-03763 Document 18 Filed on 11/13/25 in TXSD Page 6 of 6