Winston v. Housing Authority of Jefferson Parish

E.D. Louisiana

Winston v. Housing Authority of Jefferson Parish

DecidedJanuary 25, 2022

Docket2:21-cv-00454

StatusUnknown

This text of Winston v. Housing Authority of Jefferson Parish (Winston v. Housing Authority of Jefferson Parish) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Winston v. Housing Authority of Jefferson Parish, (E.D. La. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

NADIA WINSTON CIVIL ACTION VERSUS CASE NO. 21-454 JEFFERSON PARISH HOUSING SECTION: “G” AUTHORITY, ET AL.

ORDER AND REASONS

Pending before the Court is Defendants Valerie Pruitt, Soly Rosario, and Michele Livingston’s (collectively, “Moving Defendants”) “Second Motion to Dismiss.”1 The instant Motion to Dismiss was noticed for submission on January 12, 2022. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.5, any opposition to a motion must be filed eight days before the noticed submission date.2 Thus, Plaintiff’s opposition to the instant Motion was due on January 4, 2022. Plaintiff Nadia Winston has not filed an opposition to the Motion, and therefore the Motion is deemed to be unopposed. This Court has authority to grant a motion as unopposed, although it not required to do so.3 On October 30, 2021, the Court denied Moving Defendants’ first motion to dismiss.4 The Court agreed with Moving Defendants that the Complaint failed to state a claim against Moving Defendants because it did not “allege any facts regarding what actions Pruitt, Rosario, and Livingston took that entitle Plaintiff to relief.”5 Nevertheless, short of granting the motion, the

1 Rec. Doc. 32. 2 EDLA Local Rule 7.5. 3 Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 356 (5th Cir.1993). 4 Rec. Doc. 31. 5 Id. at 6. Court granted Plaintiff thirty days to amend the deficiencies identified in the Order, if possible. To date, Plaintiff has not amended the Complaint. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s October 30, 2021 Order, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Moving Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. All claims against Moving Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this 25th_ day of January, 2022.

DV errette Sobel. Us NANNETTE IGLIVETTE BROWN (ur CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

NADIA WINSTON CIVIL ACTION VERSUS CASE NO. 21-454 JEFFERSON PARISH HOUSING SECTION: “G” AUTHORITY, ET AL.

ORDER AND REASONS

Pending before the Court is Defendants Valerie Pruitt, Soly Rosario, and Michele Livingston’s (collectively, “Moving Defendants”) “Second Motion to Dismiss.”1 The instant Motion to Dismiss was noticed for submission on January 12, 2022. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.5, any opposition to a motion must be filed eight days before the noticed submission date.2 Thus, Plaintiff’s opposition to the instant Motion was due on January 4, 2022. Plaintiff Nadia Winston has not filed an opposition to the Motion, and therefore the Motion is deemed to be unopposed. This Court has authority to grant a motion as unopposed, although it not required to do so.3 On October 30, 2021, the Court denied Moving Defendants’ first motion to dismiss.4 The Court agreed with Moving Defendants that the Complaint failed to state a claim against Moving Defendants because it did not “allege any facts regarding what actions Pruitt, Rosario, and Livingston took that entitle Plaintiff to relief.”5 Nevertheless, short of granting the motion, the

1 Rec. Doc. 32. 2 EDLA Local Rule 7.5. 3 Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 356 (5th Cir.1993). 4 Rec. Doc. 31. 5 Id. at 6. Court granted Plaintiff thirty days to amend the deficiencies identified in the Order, if possible. To date, Plaintiff has not amended the Complaint. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s October 30, 2021 Order, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Moving Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. All claims against Moving Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this 25th_ day of January, 2022.

DV errette Sobel. Us NANNETTE IGLIVETTE BROWN (ur CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Winston v. Housing Authority of Jefferson Parish, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winston-v-housing-authority-of-jefferson-parish-laed-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack