DEFENDANT BLACK BIRD RANCH’S MOTION TO DISMISS

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM - Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SHERMAN DIVISION

KATHRYN SNEED and SNEED, §

EQUESTRIAN ESTATES, LLC, §

§ 

 Plaintiffs, §

§

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23-cv-00871-ALM

§

JEFFREY GIBBS, CALLI ROUSE, §

GIBBS SHOW HORSES, CALLI ROUSE §

SHOW HORSES, BLACK BIRD RANCH, §

THE BONAPARTE FAMILY LIVING §

TRUST, FRANK BONAPARTE, §

PATRICIA BONAPARTE, JUSTIN §

SCHMIDT, and JEANNIE SCHMIDT, §

 §

 Defendants. §

DEFENDANT THE BLACK BIRD RANCH’S MOTION

TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

Defendant, Black Bird Ranch (“Ranch”), files this Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State 

a Claim (“Motion”), and respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the claims and causes of 

action asserted against it through Plaintiffs’, Kathryn Sneed and Sneed Equestrian Estates, LLC 

(“Plaintiffs”), Original Complaint (“Complaint”) in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6).

I.

SUMMARY OF THE MOTION

1. The Court should grant this Motion to dismiss because Black Bird Ranch is not an 

individual or incorporated entity under the laws of any jurisdiction within the United Statas of 

America. Rather, the Ranch is owned and operated by The Bonaparte Family Living Trust 

(“Trust”) under an assumed and/or fictitious name in connection with its business of leasing stall 

barns on their property located at 8317 FM 455, Pilot Point, Texas, 76258 (“Property”). While 

Case 4:23-cv-00871-ALM Document 20 Filed 11/20/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 46
DEFENDANT BLACK BIRD RANCH’S MOTION TO DISMISS

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM - Page 2 of 6

Texas law allows for a party to bring suit against an entity doing business under an assumed name,

the Ranch is a sole proprietorship of the Trust and it is therefore indistinguishable from the same. 

As such, the Ranch lacks the procedural capacity to sue or be sued as the Trust also lacks the same 

capacity under Texas Law. 

II.

INTRODUCTION

2. On September 29, 2023, Plaintiffs sued the Ranch, Trust, Patricia Bonaparte 

(“Patricia”), and Frank Bonaparte (“Frank”) (collectively “Defendants”) asserting claims and 

causes of action for negligence arising from damages allegedly sustained to Plaintiffs’ five horses, 

Bank of the Best, PartyLikeYouMeanIt, Avante Garde, Mighty Hot Gal, and A Sudden Wonder 

(collectively, “the Horses”), while they were stabled in the stable barn facilities located on the 

Trust’s Property.

3. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs did not state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

Specifically, as alleged in paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, the Ranch is an equestrian facility 

located in Denton County, Texas. However, as further discussed herein, the Ranch is not an 

individual or an entity incorporated under the laws of any jurisdiction in the United States of 

America. Rather, the Trust owns the Property on which it conducts business, through its co-trustees 

Frank and Patricia Bonaparte, under its assumed and/or fictitious name Black Bird Ranch. As 

further discussed herein, while an entity may sue or be sued under an assumed and/or fictitious 

name under Texas law, the Ranch lacks procedural capacity to be sued under its assumed and/or 

fictitious name because its capacity is indistinguishable from and determined by the Trust’s 

capacity. As such, the Court should dismiss the claims Plaintiffs have asserted against the Ranch.

Case 4:23-cv-00871-ALM Document 20 Filed 11/20/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 47
DEFENDANT BLACK BIRD RANCH’S MOTION TO DISMISS

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM - Page 3 of 6

III.

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

4. In accordance with Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court 

may dismiss an action for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. However, in 

evaluating such motions, a court must accept well-pleaded facts as true and construe the facts in a 

light most favorable to the plaintiff. Roth v. City of Pineville, No. 1:11-cv-02061, 2012 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 63358, at *2 (W.D. La. 2012) (citing Arias-Benn v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 495 

F.3d 228, 230 (5th Cir. 2007)). To defeat a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which 

relief can be granted, the plaintiff’s allegations must “raise a right to relief above the speculative 

level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007) (citing 5 C. 

Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216, pp 235-236 (3d ed. 2004)). 

5. While there is no section of Rule 12(b) that expressly allows dismissal based on the 

lack of capacity to be sued, a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is the proper procedural 

method of challenging a defendant’s capacity to be sued. See Lancaster v. Healthtrust Workforce 

Sols., LLC, No. 4:20-CV-01957, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108196, at *2 (S.D. Tex. 2022); Roth, 

2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63358, 2012 WL 1596689, at *1. 

6. Additionally, the issue of whether a party has capacity to sue or be sued is 

determined by the law of the state in which the party is domiciled, incorporated, or by the law in 

which the court is located. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b). As such, Texas law will apply in determining 

whether the Ranch has capacity to sue or be sued because it is located in Texas and wholly owned 

by the Trust. 

7. The Ranch is wholly owned by the Trust, and the Ranch is operated by the trustees 

of the Trust as a sole proprietorship. A sole proprietorship is a “business in which one person owns 

all the assets, owes all the liabilities, and operates in his or her personal capacity.” CU Lloyd's v. 

Case 4:23-cv-00871-ALM Document 20 Filed 11/20/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 48
DEFENDANT BLACK BIRD RANCH’S MOTION TO DISMISS

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM - Page 4 of 6

Hatfield, 126 S.W.3d 679, 684 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. denied). As previously 

discussed, the Ranch constitutes a sole proprietorship because it is wholly owned and operated 

under the Trust and, therefore, it has “no separate legal existence apart from the sole 

proprietorship.” CA Partners v. Spears, 274 S.W.3d 51, 70 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 

2008, pet. denied). As such, the Ranch “is not a separate legal entity or even a different capacity 

of the individual sole proprietor” Horie v. Law Offices of Art Dula, 560 S.W.3d 425, 434 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.). Therefore, the 

7. In Texas, “[t]he term ‘trust’ refers not to a separate legal entity but rather to the 

fiduciary relationship governing the trustee with respect to the trust property.” Huie v. DeShazo,

922 S.W.2d 920, 926 (Tex. 1996). As such, “[t]he general rule in Texas (and elsewhere) has long 

been that suits against a trust must be brought against its legal representative, the trustee.” Ray 

Malooly Tr. v. Juhl, 186 S.W.3d 568, 570 (Tex. 2006) (citing Werner v. Colwell, 909 S.W.2d 866, 

870, 38 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1113 (Tex. 1995); Smith v. Wayman, 148 Tex. 318, 224 S.W.2d 211, 218 

(Tex. 1949); Slay v. Burnett Trust, 143 Tex. 621, 187 S.W.2d 377, 382 (1945). 

8. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs asserted claims and causes of action against the Ranch 

under its assumed and/or fictitious name. Thus, Plaintiffs’ claims against the Ranch are more 

accurately characterized as claims being asserted against The Bonaparte Family Living Trust d/b/a 

Black Bird Ranch. However, because a sole proprietorship’s capacity to sue or be sued is 

indistinguishable from the capacity of its individual sole proprietor, the Ranch could only be sued 

under its assumed and/or fictitious name if the Trust had the procedural capacity to sue or be sued 

itself. 

9. Despite naming the Ranch under its assumed and/or fictitious name, Plaintiffs’ 

claims against the Ranch fail because the Trust lacks procedural capacity to be sued under Texas 

Law. Rather, Texas law dictates that any claims being pursued against a trust must be brought 

Case 4:23-cv-00871-ALM Document 20 Filed 11/20/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 49
DEFENDANT BLACK BIRD RANCH’S MOTION TO DISMISS

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM - Page 5 of 6

against the trust’s legal representative(s). Therefore, because claims may not be asserted against 

the Trust directly, the Ranch lacks procedural capacity to sue or be sued under Texas law as the 

Trust itself lacks that same capacity. Thus, even taking the facts alleged as true, the Court should 

grant this Motion as Plaintiffs failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. 

IV.

PRAYER

For these reasons, Defendant Black Bird Ranch respectfully requests that the Court grant 

this Motion, and enter an order dismissing all claims and causes of action that Plaintiffs, Kathryn 

Sneed and Sneed Equestrian Estates, LLC, have asserted against the Ranch on the basis that 

Plaintiffs failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. 

Case 4:23-cv-00871-ALM Document 20 Filed 11/20/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 50
DEFENDANT BLACK BIRD RANCH’S MOTION TO DISMISS

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM - Page 6 of 6

Respectfully submitted,

GLAST, PHILLIPS & MURRAY, P.C.

By: /s/ James C. Erdle, Jr.

James C. Erdle, Jr.

State Bar No. 24069680

Glast, Phillips & Murray, P.C.

14801 Quorum Drive, Suite 500 

Dallas, TX 75254-1449

972.419.8300

972.419.8329 facsimile

jerdle@gpm-law.com

ATTORNEY IN CHARGE FOR 

DEFENDANT BLACK BIRD RANCH

Of Counsel:

Joseph D. Zopolsky

State Bar No. 24033500

Glast, Phillips & Murray, P.C.

14801 Quorum Drive, Suite 500 

Dallas, TX 75254-1449

972.419.8300

972.419.8329 facsimile

jzopolsky@gpm-law.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon 

all counsel of record in the above-captioned cause, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 5(b)(2)(E) on 

November 20, 2023 by:

Hand Delivery:

Electronic Service/Email: XX

Fax Transmittal:

/s/ James C. Erdle, Jr.

James C. Erdle, Jr. 

Case 4:23-cv-00871-ALM Document 20 Filed 11/20/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 51