In this foreclosure litigation, the District Court granted the bank’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Initially, it rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that their amended complaint—virtually identical to the original version—rendered the motion moot. Slip op. at 3-4. The District Court then addressed the property owners’ causes of action—stock allegations for quiet title and violation of Chapter 12 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code—and detailed the reasons they failed to state a viable claim. Id. at 7-22. The District Court, however, afforded the property owners an opportunity to amend their quiet title claim based on lack of proper notice because their “attention was not drawn to [the specific pleading] deficiency” that grounded dismissal. Id. at 21.
