Lassere v. South Central Planning & Development Commission

• Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana
• Decided: October 3, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01641
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

NORVEL JOSEPH LASSERE, JR. CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 24-1641

SOUTH CENTRAL PLANNING & SECTION M (4) DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, et al.

ORDER & REASONS Before the Court is a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure filed by defendants the South Central Planning & Development Commission, Lisa Maloz, and Missy Menuet (collectively, “Defendants”).1 Defendants argue that this case should be dismissed because (1) plaintiff Norvel Joseph Lassere, Jr. lacks standing in that he is not the proper plaintiff to sue for injuries to his small business, any alleged damages are not traceable to Defendants’ actions, and he has not alleged an injury-in-fact; (2) this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because Lassere does not allege a federal question; and (3) the unadorned and conclusory allegations in the complaint do not state a discrimination claim.2 The motion is set for submission on October 3, 2024.3 Local Rule 7.5 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana requires that a memorandum in opposition to a motion be filed no later than eight days before the noticed submission date, making the deadline in this instance September 25, 2024. As of today (the noticed submission date), Lassere, who is not represented by counsel, has not filed an opposition to the motion. Although the Court construes pro se filing liberally, pro se parties are still required to “abide by the rules that govern the federal

1 R. Doc. 10. 2 R. Doc. 10-1. 3 R. Doc. 10-6. courts.” EEOC v. Simbaki, Ltd., 767 F.3d 475, 484 (5th Cir. 2014); see also Jones v. FJC Sec. Servs., Inc., 612 F. App’x 201, 203 (5th Cir. 2015) (“Nonetheless, we expect litigants to meet court deadlines and observe the rules of civil procedure.”). Accordingly, because the motion is unopposed and appears to have merit for the reasons stated in Defendants’ memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss,4

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (R. Doc. 10) is GRANTED, and plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 3rd day of October, 2024.

________________________________ BARRY W. ASHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4 R. Doc. 10-1.