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 & REASONS
Before the Court is a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 8) filed by
Defendant Cuneyt Pala. Plaintiffs, Franklin Castro, Jr. and Karla Arita-Portillo,
opposed the motion (Rec. Doc. 13), and Defendant Pala filed a reply (Rec. Doc. 14).
Having considered the motions and legal memoranda, the record, and the applicable
law, the Court finds that the motion to dismiss should be DENIED, without
prejudice, and with leave to permit Plaintiffs to amend their complaint.
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. On October 20, 2024, Plaintiff Castro was driving his motorcycle on
Earhart Boulevard in New Orleans with Plaintiff Arita-Portillo as a passenger.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Resat, who was apparently driving a rental vehicle,
slammed into the back of Castro’s motorcycle, causing both Plaintiffs to be thrown
from the bike and to suffer injuries.
Case 2:25-cv-01414-CJB-DPC Document 24 Filed 11/20/25 Page 1 of 6

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
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. Pala moves to dismiss the claims
against him pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
LEGAL STANDARD
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead sufficient
facts to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim
is facially plausible when the plaintiff pleads facts that allow the court to “draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. The
factual allegations in the complaint “must be enough to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. “[D]etailed factual allegations” are
not 	required, 	but 	the 	pleading 	must 	present 	“more 	than 	an 	unadorned, 	the-
defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The court must
Case 2:25-cv-01414-CJB-DPC Document 24 Filed 11/20/25 Page 2 of 6

accept all well-pleaded facts as true and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor
of the plaintiff. Lormand v. US Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 2009).
However, “conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual
conclusions will not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss.” Beavers v. Metro. Life Ins.
Co., 566 F.3d 436, 439 (5th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).
Furthermore, when considering a motion to dismiss, a district court should
freely grant leave to amend the complaint unless amendment would be futile. See,
e.g., United States ex rel. Steury v. Cardinal Health, Inc., 625 F.3d 262, 270 (5th Cir.
2010).
DISCUSSION
In their state-court petition, Plaintiffs averred that Defendants Cuneyt Pala
and/or Sixt were liable to them for negligent entrustment of the vehicle to Defendant
Resat. (Rec. Doc. 13-1, at 3 ¶ 7). In his Motion to Dismiss, Defendant Pala accurately
states the Louisiana law of negligent entrustment and claims that he did not have an
ownership or lessor/lessee interest in the vehicle that Defendant Resat was driving
at the time of the collision. Pala also maintains that “Plaintiffs simply cannot allege
facts in good faith that Pala has the foundational relationship to the Resat vehicle to
sufficiently state a cause of action for ‘negligent entrustment,’ because no such facts
exist.” (Rec. Doc. 8-2, at 6–7). More pointedly, he asserts that “Plaintiffs’ allegations
are entirely silent on what relationship, if any, Pala has to the Resat vehicle.” Id. at
3.
Case 2:25-cv-01414-CJB-DPC Document 24 Filed 11/20/25 Page 3 of 6

In their opposition to Pala’s Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs explain that they
obtained Pala’s name because he is the owner of the Progressive insurance policy
identified in the Crash Report as providing coverage for the vehicle that Resat was
driving when the collision occurred. Pala simply states in his reply that he was not
the owner, the rentee/lessee, or the driver of the vehicle, but he does not offer any
explanation as to why he was identified as the owner of the insurance policy
associated with the vehicle, nor does he confirm or deny the allegation that he owned
this policy or that it provided coverage for the vehicle. (Rec. Doc. 14, at 3 (“Pala being
the ‘owner’ of the Progressive policy, that may or may not have provided coverage for
the subject accident, does not expose any liability upon Pala for the alleged negligence
of a vehicle allegedly owned by Sixt, leased to another, and negligently operated by
Resat.”)).
Under these circumstances, the Court agrees that Plaintiffs have not alleged
sufficient facts to connect Defendant Pala directly to the vehicle that Resat was
driving (or to Resat himself) or to establish all elements of a negligent entrustment
claim under Louisiana law. However, at the same time, Plaintiffs reasonably named
Pala as a defendant based on the information available to them from the Louisiana
Uniform Crash Report.
Moreover, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), the Court should freely
give leave to amend when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “If the underlying
facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, he
ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits.” Foman v. Davis,
Case 2:25-cv-01414-CJB-DPC Document 24 Filed 11/20/25 Page 4 of 6

371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Leave to amend, however, “is by no means automatic.”
Halbert v. City of Sherman, 33 F.3d 526, 529 (5th Cir. 1994). The Court considers
multiple factors, including “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of
the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed,
undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and]
futility of amendment.” Foman, 371 U.S. at 182.
First, the Court does not find any bad faith or dilatory motive on Plaintiffs’
part. Furthermore, while Plaintiffs have previously amended their complaint to add
an additional defendant, this will be their first substantive amendment to the
complaint in relation to Mr. Pala, and this amendment is important because without
it, Plaintiffs’ ability to recover for the damages they sustained may be unduly limited.
Additionally, Defendant Pala has been served with notice of the suit against him, so
allowing 	Plaintiffs 	to 	amend 	their 	complaint 	will 	not 	cause 	undue 	prejudice,
particularly considering that it is still early in the litigation. The Court does not find
that amendment of the complaint would be futile, and therefore, it freely grants
Plaintiffs leave to amend.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Cuneyt Pala’s Rule 12(b)(6)
Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 8) is DENIED, without prejudice. Defendant Pala
shall be permitted to re-file the motion, if necessary, to address the amended
complaint.
Case 2:25-cv-01414-CJB-DPC Document 24 Filed 11/20/25 Page 5 of 6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs are permitted leave to file a
second amended complaint within 21 days.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 20th day of November, 2025.
____________________________________
CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-01414-CJB-DPC Document 24 Filed 11/20/25 Page 6 of 6