Castro, et al v. Resat, et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
FRANKLIN CASTRO, JR.
AND KARLA ARITA-PORTILLO
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-1414
AYDIN RESAT ET AL. 	SECTION: “J”(2)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 41(b)
(Rec. Doc. 25) filed by Defendant Cuneyt Pala. Plaintiffs did not file an opposition
to 	the 	motion. 	Having 	considered 	Defendant 	Cuneyt 	Pala’s 	motion 	and 	legal
memorandum, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the motion to
dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) should be GRANTED.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This litigation arises out of injuries that Plaintiffs sustained when Defendant
Aydin Resat allegedly crashed a rental car into the back of Plaintiff Castro’s
motorcycle, throwing both Castro and his passenger, Arita-Portillo, from the bike. On
May 12, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the instant suit against three defendants—Aydin Resat,
Cuneyt Pala, and Sixt Rent a Car, LLC (whom Plaintiffs incorrectly named in their
original 	petition)—in 	Civil 	District 	Court 	for 	the 	Parish 	of 	Orleans, 	State 	of
Louisiana. Defendant Sixt Rent a Car, LLC removed the case to this Court on July
10, 2025, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, averring that the Court had diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Defendant Aydin Resat was allegedly driving the
Case 2:25-cv-01414-CJB-DPC Document 26 Filed 01/09/26 Page 1 of 3

automobile that struck Plaintiffs, while Defendant Sixt Rent a Car, LLC was the
company that owned the rental automobile driven by Resat, a Florida domiciliary
who was visiting New Orleans. Plaintiffs also included Cuneyt Pala as a defendant
based on the Louisiana Uniform Crash Report from the collision, which listed an
insurance policy belonging to Defendant Pala.
Previously, Defendant Pala filed a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc.
8), which Plaintiffs opposed (Rec. Doc. 13). On November 20, 2025, the Court denied
Pala’s Motion to Dismiss, without prejudice, and granted Plaintiffs leave to amend
their complaint within 21 days in order to state a claim against Pala on which relief
could be granted. (Rec. Doc. 24). Plaintiffs still have not filed an amended complaint,
and therefore, Pala filed the instant motion seeking dismissal under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 41(b).
DISCUSSION
As explained in its previous Order, the Court agrees that Plaintiffs have not
alleged sufficient facts to connect Defendant Pala to the motor vehicle accident that
gave rise to this litigation. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have not filed an amended
complaint as permitted by the Court’s November 20, 2025 Order, and therefore, they
have failed to state a claim against Pala on which relief can be granted. Accordingly,
dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Pala is warranted under Rule
12(b)(6).
Additionally, Pala urges the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s action against him
with prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41(b). Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Case 2:25-cv-01414-CJB-DPC Document 26 Filed 01/09/26 Page 2 of 3

Procedure provides that when a court dismisses an action based on the plaintiff’s
failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order, the dismissal “operates as an
adjudication on the merits.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). However, Rule 41(b) also states that
“a dismissal under this subdivision (b) and any dismissal not under this rule—except
one for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule 19—
operates as an adjudication on the merits.” Id. (emphasis added). In other words, a
dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is a dismissal with prejudice, unless the court’s order
specifies otherwise, and therefore, it has preclusive effect. Accordingly, there is no
reason to rely on Rule 41(b) in this case, and instead, the Court will grant dismissal
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Cuneyt Pala’s Motion to Dismiss
Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Rec. Doc. 25) is GRANTED, and all of Plaintiffs’ claims
against 	Defendant 	Cuneyt 	Pala 	in 	the 	above-captioned 	matter 	are 	hereby
DISMISSED, with prejudice.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 9th day of January, 2026.
____________________________________
CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-01414-CJB-DPC Document 26 Filed 01/09/26 Page 3 of 3