Thomas v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.

4 Citing briefs

  1. Aureliano Galvez v. Automobile Club of Southern California et al

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to the Complaint

    Filed March 6, 2017

    Contrary to Plaintiff’s claims, Auto Club has expended significant resources to ensure that they provide adequate service to all members. See, e.g., Thomas v. Branch Banking & Tr. Co., 32 F. Supp. 3d 1266, 1271 (N.D. Ga. 2014) (holding plaintiff’s ADA claims moot because the Court found no evidence of “relapse into noncompliance” because “it would not only expose [the defendant] to liability in later suits, but would also be costly”). Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims are moot.

  2. Winner v. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation

    REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion

    Filed September 16, 2016

    Furthermore, given the cost that Six Flags’ incurred in implanting the Attractions Access Pass Program, it would make no sense for Six Flags to have gone through the expense of researching and implementing this program (including the cost of changing the accessibility guide and training Ride Information Center employees) only to change its policy in the future. See Houston, 2014 WL 351970, at *3; Thomas, 32 F. Supp. 3d at 1271. Case 3:15-cv-00103-PGS-TJB Document 32 Filed 09/16/16 Page 12 of 20 PageID: 1127 -9- Again, given the cost associated with implementing the Attractions Access Pass program, it makes little sense that Six Flags’ would cancel the program and/or remove Plaintiff from the database. See id.

  3. Majesko v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company et al

    MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM with Brief In Support

    Filed March 13, 2017

    “[I]t is not enough that a dispute was very much alive when suit was filed, … [t]he parties must continue to have a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit” throughout pleadings, such as testimony and affidavits, are considered.”) (quotations and citations omitted); Thomas v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 32 F. Supp. 3d 1266, 1268 (N.D. Ga. 2014) (motion to dismiss on mootness grounds presents factual attack and thus “the Court is free to weigh evidence and need not assume the truth of the plaintiff's averments.”).

  4. Hill v. re et al

    REPLY BRIEF re MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

    Filed December 1, 2016

    B. Because Defendants’ Barton motion is a factual attack on subject-matter jurisdiction, this Court may consider the evidence that Defendants attached to their Motion to Dismiss. See Thomas v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 32 F. Supp. 3d 1266, 1268 (N.D. Ga. 2014) (“When analyzing a factual attack, the Court is free to weigh evidence and need not assume the truth of the plaintiff's averments.”); AFC Enters., Inc. v. Restaurant Group LLC, No. 1:10-cv-1772, 2010 WL 4537812, at *2 (2010) (courts may consider matters outside the pleadings, including testimony and affidavits, on a factual attack).