Filed: Jul. 12, 2016
Latest Update: Jul. 12, 2016
Summary: ORDER AND REASONS SUSIE MORGAN , District judge . Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and must be raised by the court sua sponte . 1 On October 3, 2015, Plaintiffs, R Bend Estates II, LLC ("R Bend"), Pierre Gaudin, and John Treme, filed this federal civil action against St. John the Baptist Parish and the St. John the Baptist Parish Council. According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants have, on more than one occasion, arbitrarily and capriciously refused to issue to them appropr
Summary: ORDER AND REASONS SUSIE MORGAN , District judge . Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and must be raised by the court sua sponte . 1 On October 3, 2015, Plaintiffs, R Bend Estates II, LLC ("R Bend"), Pierre Gaudin, and John Treme, filed this federal civil action against St. John the Baptist Parish and the St. John the Baptist Parish Council. According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants have, on more than one occasion, arbitrarily and capriciously refused to issue to them appropri..
More
ORDER AND REASONS
SUSIE MORGAN, District judge.
Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and must be raised by the court sua sponte.1
On October 3, 2015, Plaintiffs, R Bend Estates II, LLC ("R Bend"), Pierre Gaudin, and John Treme, filed this federal civil action against St. John the Baptist Parish and the St. John the Baptist Parish Council. According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants have, on more than one occasion, arbitrarily and capriciously refused to issue to them appropriate zoning permits, which has prevented Plaintiffs from developing property they own in St. John the Baptist Parish. The Plaintiffs allege violations of (1) the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 4, of the Louisiana Constitution; and (2) the due process and equal protection guarantees in both the United States Constitution and the Louisiana Constitution.2
The Defendants filed their answer on December 10, 2015. The Defendants assert lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as an affirmative defense in their answer.3
The Court finds there is a basis to question its subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter, which involves a local zoning dispute that has not been fully litigated at the state level. One of the claims asserted by the Plaintiffs is a takings claim under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 4, of the Louisiana Constitution. The Fifth Circuit and the courts within it generally recognize that takings claims are not ripe in federal court until "(1) the relevant governmental unit has reached a final decision as to what will be done with the property and (2) the plaintiff has sought compensation through whatever adequate procedures the state provides."4 Likewise, due process and equal protection claims are unripe in federal court if the claims rest solely on rights afforded by the Takings Clause and are brought in conjunction with an unripe takings claim.5
Because the Court must ensure that it has subject-matter jurisdiction, IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiffs shall file a memorandum in support of the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction over this action no later than Tuesday, July 19, 2016, at 5:00 p.m. For guidance in considering these subject-matter jurisdiction issues, the Court refers the Plaintiffs to Bienville Quarters, LLC v. East Feliciana Parish Police Jury, No. 07-158-JJB-DLD, 2010 WL 2653317 (M.D. La. June 25, 2010).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants may, in response to the memorandum filed by the Plaintiffs, file a memorandum challenging the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction no later than Tuesday, July 26, 2016, at 5:00 p.m.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall comply with the pretrial deadlines in this matter, as set forth below:
Plaintiff's expert reports Delivered to defense counsel by June 20, 2016
Status Conference July 7, 2016 at 2:00 p.m.
Defendant's expert reports Delivered to plaintiff's counsel by July 19, 2016
Witness and exhibit lists Filed and served upon opponents by July 19,
2016
Plaintiffs' memorandum in support of Filed and served no later than July 19, 2016 at
subject-matter jurisdiction 5:00 p.m.
Defendants' memorandum, if any, Filed and served no later than July 26, 2016 at
objecting to subject-matter jurisdiction 5:00 p.m.
motion
Depositions and discovery Completed by August 16, 2016
Non-evidentiary pretrial motions and Filed and served no later than August 16, 2016
motions in limine regarding the at 5:00 p.m.
admissibility of expert testimony
See Scheduling Order at p. 2 regarding the
format of depositions.
Responses/oppositions to non-evidentiary Filed and served no later than August 23, 2016
pretrial motions and motions in limine at 5:00 p.m.
regarding the admissibility of expert
testimony
Pretrial order Filed by September 9, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.
Any exhibits to be used solely for impeachment
must be presented to the Court for in camera
review by this deadline. See Section IX.10.b of the
pretrial notice
Pretrial conference September 14, 2016 at 3:00 p.m.
Attended by lead attorney. (See Local Rule
11.2)
Motions in limine (other than those Filed and served no later than September 15,
regarding the admissibility of expert 2016 at 5:00 p.m.
testimony) and memoranda in support
Responses to non-expert motions in limine Filed and served no later than September 22,
and memoranda in support 2016 at 5:00 p.m.
Joint statement of the case Filed by September 26, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.
See pretrial notice at p. 8
Joint jury instructions (or if agreement Filed and emailed to the Court by September
cannot be reached, three sets of 26, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. See pretrial notice at p.
instructions, as set forth in the pretrial 8
notice at p. 8)
Joint proposed jury verdict form (or if Filed by September 26, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.
agreement cannot be reached, separate See pretrial notice at p. 8
proposed jury verdict forms and a joint
memorandum explaining the
disagreements between the parties as to
the verdict form).
Proposed special voir dire questions Filed by September 26, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.
See pretrial notice at p. 8
Objections to exhibits and supporting Filed by September 26, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.
memoranda See pretrial notice at p. 5
Note: Each objection must identify the
relevant objected-to exhibit by the number
assigned to the exhibit in the joint bench
book(s). See pretrial notice at p. 5.
Two copies of joint bench book(s) of Delivered to the Court by September 26, 2016
tabbed exhibits, with indices of "objected-to at 5:00 p.m. See pretrial notice at pp. 5-6
to" and "unobjected-to" exhibits,
identifying which party will offer each
exhibit and which witness will testify
regarding the exhibit at trial
Trial memoranda Filed by September 26, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.
See pretrial notice at pp. 8-9
Objections to deposition testimony and Filed by September 26, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.
supporting memoranda See pretrial notice at p. 6 with particular attention
to instructions regarding the format of
depositions
Responses to objections to exhibits Filed by September 28, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.
See pretrial notice at p. 5
Responses to objections to deposition Filed by September 28, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.
testimony See pretrial notice at p. 6.
If counsel intends to ask questions on The factual elements of such questions shall be
cross-examination of an economic expert submitted to the expert witness by September
which require mathematical calculations 28, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. See pretrial notice at p.
7.
List and brief description of any charts, Provided to opposing counsel by September
graphs, models, schematic diagrams, and 28, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. See pretrial notice at p.
similar objects intended to be used in 7
opening statements or closing arguments
Objections to any charts, graphs, models, Filed by September 29, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.
schematic diagrams, and similar objects See pretrial notice at p. 7
intended to be used by opposing counsel in
opening statements or closing arguments
Jury trial October 3, 2016 at 9:00 a.m.
(estimated to last 3 days)
