govinfo:USCOURTS-laed-2_23-cv-06834-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 
TYRA CAIRE TREADWAY CIVIL ACTION 
VERSUS NO. 23-6834 
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY 
COMPANY 
SECTION “O” 
ORDER AND REASONS 
 Before the Court is Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s 
(“State Farm”) motion1 for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of 
Civil Procedure 12(c) . Plaintiffs Tyra Caire Treadway (“Treadway”) and M1SRJT 
Jeanette, LLC (“M1SRJT”) oppose .2 For the following reasons, the Court DENIES 
the motion. 
I. BACKGROUND 
According to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, 3 Plaintiff Tyra Treadway 
owned a property located at 7000-02 Jeannette Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70118 
(the “Property”). The Property was insured under State Farm homeowners ’ policy 
(the “Policy”). On August 29, 2021, Hurricane Ida made landfall in Louisiana and the 
Property—which at the time was still owned by Treadway—experienced damage.4 
Almost two years after Hurricane Ida, o n August 9, 2023, Plaintiff M1SRJT 
purchased the Property from Treadway. As part of the purchase, Treadway assigned 
her State Farm insurance claim for damage to the Property to M1SRJT, including 
 
1 ECF No. 43. 
2 ECF No. 46. 
3 ECF No. 22. 
4 Id. ¶¶ 5-8. 

2 
 
the “right to pursue and collect all additional damages, penalties, attorney’s fees, and 
costs that [State Farm] may be liable for as a result of its bad faith conduct in 
connection with its adjustment of the claim as a result of Hurricane Ida.”5 
Several months later, Treadway filed an Amended Complaint adding M1SRJT 
as co -plaintiff and alleging for the first time that M1SRJT is the assignee of the 
insurance claim. 6 State Farm ’s Answer to the Amended Complaint denied that 
allegation.7 As its twenty-second defense, State Farm quoted from the portion of the 
insurance policy at issue , which prohibits the assignment of claims without its 
written consent: 
Assignment of Claim. Assignment to another party of any of your 
rights or duties under this policy regarding any claim, or any part of 
any claim, whether the assignment is made prior to or after the loss, 
will be void. We will not recognize any assignment, unless we give 
our written consent. However, once you have complied with all 
policy provisions, you may assign to another party, in writing, 
payment of claim proceeds otherwise payable to you.8 
 
State Farm’s Answer also presented an alternative defense. As its twenty -
fourth defense, State Farm pleaded that Treadway “is not a real party in interest and 
lacks standing and/or the capacity to sue as she assigned all of her rights and 
interests in the insurance claim forming the basis of this lawsuit prior to the 
commencement of this lawsuit.”9 And State Farm’s twenty-third defense averred that 
“Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by prescription.”10 
 
5 Id. ¶ 9. 
6 ECF No. 22. 
7 ECF No. 27 at 15 ¶ 9. 
8 Id. at 12 (emphasis in original). 
9 Id. 
10 Id. 

3 
 
State Farm now brings a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) , seeking to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims . According to State Farm, 
Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint establishes that Treadway assigned her insurance 
claim and all rights under the State Farm policy associated with the Property to 
M1SRJT when Treadway sold the Property. Accordingly, Treadway is not the proper 
party in interest and thus has no right of action against State Farm. Moreover, argues 
State Farm, the claims later asserted in the January 2025 Amended Complaint by 
M1SRJT—the proper party in interest—are prescribed because they were filed more 
than two years after the August 29, 2021 loss and do not relate back to Treadway’s 
original petition. 
Plaintiffs oppose. They contend that the Court cannot accept as fact the alleged 
assignment for several reasons, including that it is denied by State Farm and 
prohibited by the operative insurance contract. Instead, argue Plaintiffs, the validity 
of the assignment is an open legal question—one that requires a legal conclusion after 
weighing of summary judgment evidence and is therefore inappropriate for this Court 
to resolve in a Rule 12(c) motion. According to Plaintiffs, any inconsistency in their 
pleadings—including pleading an allegation of assignment to M1SRJT while also 
maintaining that Treadway is the proper party to this suit—is permissible under Fed. 
R. Civ. P. 8(d). 
The Court considers the arguments as follows. 
II. LEGAL STANDARD 

4 
 
“After the pleadings are closed —but early enough not to delay trial —a party 
may move for judgment on the pleadings.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c). “The standard for 
dismissal ‘is the same as that for dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 
12(b)(6).’” Johnson v. Miller , 98 F.4th 580, 583 (5th Cir. 2024) (quoting Bosarge v. 
Miss. Bureau of Narcotics , 796 F.3d 435, 439 (5th Cir. 2015)). So, to survive a Rule 
12(c) motion, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, 
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 
has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court 
to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 
alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “Although ‘[courts] accept all well-pled 
facts as true, construing all reasonable inferences in the complaint in the light most 
favorable to the plaintiff, conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual inferences, or 
legal conclusions are not accepted as true.’ ” Hodge v. Engleman , 90 F.4th 840, 843 
(5th Cir. 2024) (quoting Allen v. Hays, 65 F.4th 736, 743 (5th Cir. 2023)). 
III. ANALYSIS 
State Farm contends that the Court must “accept the truth” of Plaintiffs’ 
allegation that Treadway “assigned the insurance claim” and all associated rights to 
M1SRJT on August 9, 202 3, three weeks before Treadway filed her state court 
complaint on August 26, 2023. 11 According to State Farm, this “judicial confession” 
by Plaintiffs of the claim’s assignment reveals that Treadway was not the proper 
 
11 ECF No. 49 at 2-3. 

5 
 
party in interest when she filed the suit in state court. Rather, contends State Farm, 
M1SRJT is the only party that has an enforceable claim. Under La. R.S. 22:868(B) 
and the Policy, a lawsuit for hurricane damage must be filed within two years of the 
date of the storm—here, August 2021. Because M1SRJT was not added to the suit as 
a co-plaintiff until the filing of the January 10, 2025 Amended Complaint, State Farm 
asserts that M1SRJT’s claims are prescribed and any later claims asserted by 
M1SRJT cannot relate back to Treadway’s improper claim. 
State Farm’s argument requires the Court to agree with a core assumption: 
that is, Plaintiffs’ allegation that “Plaintiff Treadway [] assigned the insurance claim 
with the purchase of the property to Plaintiff M1SRJT” is a binding judicial 
admission. The Court declines to do so. “A motion brought pursuant to Rule 12(c) is 
designed to dispose of cases where the material facts are not in dispute and a 
judgment on the merits can be rendered by looking to the substance of the pleadings 
and any judicially noticed facts.” Cascio v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CIV.A. 11-
1699, 2011 WL 5439331, at *1 (E.D. La. Nov. 9, 2011) (Feldman, J.) (citing Great 
Plains Trust Co. V. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 313 F.3d 305, 313 (5th Cir. 
2002)). 
The “material fact” at issue here is whether Treadway assigned the insurance 
claim to M1SRJT before filing the lawsuit. Contrary to State Farm’s assertion, t hat 
fact is very much “in dispute.” Cascio, 2011 WL 5439331, at *1. For one, State Farm 
denied the allegation in its Answer. 12 What’s more, State Farm’s Answer excerpted 
 
12 ECF No. 27 at 15 ¶ 9. 

6 
 
from the insurance policy at issue, which expressly state s that State Farm will “not 
recognize any assignment, unless we give our written consent. ”13 State Farm ’s 
motion implies that the Court should only consider the allegations in the Amended 
Complaint when deciding a motion for judgment on the pleadings . But “[t]he 
‘pleadings’ include the complaint, answer to the complaint, and ‘if the court orders 
one, a reply to an answer.’” Bosarge v. Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics, 796 F.3d 435, 
440 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)). The pleadings here—which include 
State Farm’s Answer —squarely present the issue of assignment as a disputed 
question. 
Further, in ruling on a Rule 12(c) motion, courts “accept all well -pled facts as 
true,” but “ conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual inferences, or legal 
conclusions are not accepted as true. ” Hodge, 90 F.4th at 843 (citation omitted). 
Louisiana Civil Code article 2653 invalidates a contract’s anti-assignment clause 
when the assignee is ignorant of its existence. La. Civ. Code art. 2653 (“A right cannot 
be assigned when the contract from which it arises prohibits the assignment of that 
right. Such a prohibition has no effect against an assignee who has no knowledge of 
its existence.”). In other words, under Louisiana law, if the assignee had knowledge 
of the contract’s anti-assignment provision before the assignment, the assignment is 
void. See id.; see also Fulltime Restoration Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. , 2022 
WL 90179, at *3 (W.D. La. Jan. 7, 2022) (finding that if the assignee has actual or 
constructive knowledge of the anti -assignment clause, it is void). Accordingly, it is 
 
13 Id. at 12 (emphasis in original). 

7 
 
possible that Treadway successfully assigned the insurance claim to M1SRJT —in 
spite of the anti-assignment clause—if M1SRJT was unaware of the anti-assignment 
clause. But such a finding would require this Court to make a legal conclusion 
inappropriate at this stage of the proceeding. See Fulltime Restoration , 2022 WL 
90179, at *3 (denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment where there was 
“not enough information to impute knowledge of the anti -assignment clause to” the 
assignee). 
Finally, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that any inconsistencies found in the 
factual and legal theories presented in the parties’ pleadings are permissible under 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d), which allows a party to “state as many separate claims or 
defenses as it has, regardless of consistency.” Indeed, under that rule, a party “may 
set out 2 or more statements of a claim or defense alternatively or hypothetically, 
either in a single count or defense or in separate ones. ” Id. In this case, Plaintiff 
Treadway filed a n in itial state court petition14 against State Farm that did not 
include M1SRJT. Plaintiff later moved to file a First Amended Complaint, explaining 
to the Court that Treadway “assigned the insurance claim at issue [to M1SRJT] with 
the purchase of the property,” while also acknowledging that the State Farm policy, 
which it attached to its motion, “includes a provision that voids an assignment of the 
insured’s rights under the policy to another party.”15 Plaintiffs accordingly sought to 
amend their complaint and add M1SRJT as a co -party “to assuage any concerns by 
 
14 ECF No. 1-1. 
15 ECF No. 13-1 at 2; ECF No. 13-5 (State Farm Policy exceprt). 

8 
 
State Farm that it may be exposed to multiple claims.” 16 In other words, Plaintiffs ’ 
amendment sought to capture both potential grounds of recovery against State 
Farm—by either Treadway or M1SRJT. 
Indeed, State Farm appears to have understood Plaintiffs’ strategy of pleading 
alternative theories , because it too plead alternative and inherently inconsistent 
defense theories in its Answer. That is, State Farm not only denied the validity of the 
assignment under the terms of the policy, but also alternatively pled that Treadway 
“assigned all of her rights and interests in the insurance claim” and thus is “not a 
real party in interest.”17 Because the parties are permitted to take these inconsistent 
and alternative theories of recovery and defense under Rule 8(d) , the Court will not 
penalize Plaintiffs for doing so in their Amended Complaint. See Citizens & S. Nat’l 
Bank v. Am. Sur. Co. , 347 F.2d 18, 23 (5th Cir. 1965) ( noting “the Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure do not require consistency of pleadings”); Martin Braun, S.A. v. Time 
Cent., Inc. , 2010 WL 11652135, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 13, 2010), report and 
recommendation adopted, 2011 WL 13324339 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2011) 
(“Fortunately for both parties, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit the 
pleading of such apparent inconsistencies . . . any inconsistency by TCI in failing to 
admit the Agreement is a valid enforceable contract while also asserting claims based 
on breach of the Agreement is not a valid reason for dismissal. ”). Accordingly, the 
Court denies Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. 
 
16 Id. 
17 ECF No. 27 at 12, 15 ¶ 9. 

9 
 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Accordingly, 
IT IS ORDERED that State Farm’s Rule 12(c) motion18 for judgment on the 
pleadings is DENIED . 
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 28th day of April, 2026. 
BRANDON S. LONG 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
18 ECF No. 43. 

Passage view · GavelSight