Spell v. Edwards
| Decision Date | 10 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-00282-BAJ-EWD |
| Citation | 500 F.Supp.3d 503 |
| Parties | Mark Anthony SPELL, et al. v. John Bel EDWARDS, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana |
Jeffrey Scott Wittenbrink, Wittenbrink Law Firm, Baton Rouge, LA, Roy S. Moore, Pro Hac Vice, Foundation for Moral Law, Montgomery, AL, for Mark Anthony Spell.
Jeffrey Scott Wittenbrink, Wittenbrink Law Firm, Baton Rouge, LA, for Life Tabernacle Church.
Jack M. Weiss, III, Jack M. Weiss, Attorney at Law, Christopher T. Chocheles, Darnell Bludworth, Joshua S. Force, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein, McAlister & Hilbert, New Orleans, LA, James M. Garner, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC, New Orelans, LA, Matthew F. Block, Office of the Governor Louisiana State Capitol, Baton Rouge, LA, for John Bel Edwards.
Sheri M. Morris, Daigle, Fisse & Kessenich, John Scott Thomas, Louisiana Municipal Association, Baton Rouge, LA, for Roger Corcoran.
Tara Lynn Johnston, Mary G. Erlingson, Ashley Michelle Caruso, Erlingson Banks, PLLC, Baton Rouge, LA, for Sid Gautreaux.
RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs, Mark Anthony Spell and Life Tabernacle Church's Motion for Leave to Oppose Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Doc. 87). Plaintiffs ask for leave because they did not timely file a Motion to Oppose Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 74, 78, 80). In light of this fact, Defendant John Bel Edwards filed a Motion for Entry of Judgment on Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (Doc. 85). For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs' Motion is DENIED , Defendant Edwards's Motion for Entry of Judgment is DENIED , Defendants' Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED , and Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Like all states1 the State of Louisiana, governed by Defendant John Bel Edwards (the "Governor"), declared a statewide public health emergency in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic (Doc. 1-3 at p. 15). During this time of crisis, the Governor's office issued proclamations outlining restrictions on certain activities in light of the State's evolving response to the pandemic.2 At the beginning of the crisis the Governor's proclamations, under guidance issued to all states by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, imposed tight restrictions upon the ability of all persons to gather and congregate in a variety of contexts, including worship. (Doc. 21 at p. 5). These proclamations were issued to promote efforts to limit the rapid spread of COVID-19 and have changed as guidance related to transmission of the virus has changed. To date there is no vaccine, no known cure, and no effective treatment for the virus, and restrictions remain in place in various ways throughout the country.
Plaintiff Mark Anthony Spell is the pastor of Plaintiff Life Tabernacle Church, located in the Baton Rouge area. (Doc. 58 at ¶¶ 3–4). Plaintiffs allege that the restrictions contained in the Governor's proclamations violate their constitutional rights under the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and applicable state statutory and constitutional provisions. (Doc. 58). Plaintiffs sued Defendants—the Governor, Roger Corcoran (the "Chief of Police"), and Sid Gautreaux (the "Sheriff")—to have the restrictions against them imposed on May 29, 2020 enjoined as unconstitutional. (Doc. 58 at ¶ 2). Plaintiff Spell additionally seeks to be compensated for the deprivation of his constitutionally protected rights.
On May 7, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendants, along with a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, in an attempt to prevent the enforcement of one of the Governor's proclamations, which restricted the gathering of more than ten people in a single space indoors at a single time. On May 15, 2020, Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 2) was denied by this Court. (Doc. 46). The Plaintiffs subsequently filed an Amended Complaint on May 29, 2020. (Doc. 58). Plaintiffs also immediately appealed the denial of the temporary restraining order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The appeal was dismissed as moot on June 18, 2020. See Spell v. Edwards , 962 F.3d 175, (5th Cir. 2020).
On June 16, 2020, the Governor filed a Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) & (6). (Doc. 74). The Sheriff and the Chief of Police filed Rule 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss on June 26, 2020 (Doc. 78) and July 6, 2020 (Doc. 80). Local Rule 7(f) provides "Each respondent opposing a motion shall file a response, including opposing affidavits, memorandum, and such supporting documents as are then available, within twenty-one days after service of the motion."
Plaintiffs were therefore required to file an opposition to these motions by, at the latest, July 27, 2020, but failed to do so. Therefore, the September 2, 2020 Motion for Leave to Oppose Defendants' Motions to Dismiss is at best a month overdue. As such, it is within the Court's discretion to treat the Motions to Dismiss as unopposed.
See, e.g. Nelson v. Star Enterprise , 220 F.3d 587 (5th Cir. 2000).
Prior to addressing the merits of Plaintiffs' claims, the Court must determine whether to grant Plaintiffs Motion for leave to respond to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. As is discussed below, the Court will not grant leave to oppose Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. However, the Governor's request that we grant his motion to dismiss solely because Plaintiffs failed to timely file their opposition is too harsh a sanction, and as such will be denied.3
Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave seeks relief from requirements and deadlines imposed by the Court's Local Rules. Federal Rule 83(a)(1) permits the Court to establish local rules. A valid local rule has the force of law. Weil v. Neary , 278 U.S. 160, 169, 49 S.Ct. 144, 73 L.Ed. 243 (1929) ; Jetton v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. , 121 F.3d 423, 426 (8th Cir. 1997). Litigants "are charged with knowledge of the district court's rules the same as with knowledge of the Federal Rules and all federal law." Jetton , 121 F.3d at 426. The Court's local rules require that each respondent opposing a motion file a response to the motion within twenty-one days after service, unless upon a party's written motion, the Court finds good cause to shorten or extend the deadline. LR 7.4.
Generally, "[c]ourts have broad discretion in interpreting and applying their own local rules," Matter of Adams , 734 F.2d 1094, 1102 (5th Cir. 1984), and a party that "fails to comply with the Local Rules does so at his own peril." Broussard v. Oryx Energy Co. , 110 F. Supp. 2d 532, 537 (E.D. Tex. 2000). Absent a specific standard required by a Local Rule, this Court measures Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave for "good cause." E.g., Chevron TCI, Inc. v. Capitol House Hotel Manager, LLC , No. 18-cv-776, 2020 WL 1164835, at *1 n.1 (M.D. La. Mar. 11, 2020).
However, "the Fifth Circuit has not approved the automatic grant of motions that are dispositive on litigation on the ground that the nonmoving party failed to comply with local rules that require a party to file a response to an opposed motion." Darville v. Turner Industries Group, LLC. , 305 F.R.D. 91, 94 (M.D. La. 2015) ). The Court views "the automatic grant of a dispositive motion, such as a dismissal with prejudice based solely on a litigant's failure to comply with a local rule, with considerable aversion." Webb v. Morella , 457 Fed. Appx. 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2012).
To dismiss a claim with prejudice based on a litigant's conduct, the Court must find "egregious and continued refusal to abide by the court's deadlines." Id. Where courts have affirmed a dismissal with prejudice based on failure to prosecute, courts has usually found "at least one of three aggravating factors: ‘(1) delay caused by [the] plaintiff himself and not his attorney; (2) actual prejudice to the defendant; or (3) delay caused by intentional conduct.’ " Berry v. CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA , 975 F.2d 1188, 1191 (5th Cir. 1992) (quoting Price v. McGlathery , 792 F.2d 472, 474 (5th Cir. 1986) ). The Court considers the dismissal of a claim with prejudice due solely to failing to abide by a Local Rule to be a "severe sanction that should be used only in extreme circumstances." Webb , 457 Fed. Appx. at 452. (quoting Boazman v. Econ. Lab, Inc. , 537 F.2d 210, 212 (5th Cir. 1976) ).
Plaintiffs argue that because they were "actively pursuing the matter before the Court of Appeal" and are "presently preparing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court" the court should grant leave. (Doc. 87-1). Plaintiffs also note that one of their local counsel contracted and recovered from COVID-19 during the time that the responses to Defendants' motions were due. Plaintiffs argued that the attorney also physically relocated into new office space, thus accounting for the delay in the response.
While the court is sympathetic to the illness suffered by one of Plaintiffs' counsel, it is worth noting that two attorneys are enrolled as counsel of record in this matter, therefore this reason alone is not enough to establish good cause. Plaintiffs would like the Court to believe that while Plaintiffs were able to file their appeal to the Fifth Circuit on July 2, 2020, they had good cause to not file an opposition to the Governor's Motion to Dismiss a mere five days' later. Even if filing pleadings in the Fifth Circuit was so time consuming as to constitute "good cause", Plaintiffs' appeal was denied as moot on July 22, 2020, again, five days' before the deadline to file an opposition to the final Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs' explanation and excuse strain credulity.
However, dismissing the action...
To continue reading
Request your trial