WANG v. OCHSNER MEDICAL CENTER- KENNER, L.L.C., 17-5134. (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Number: infdco20170818d68
Visitors: 8
Filed: Aug. 17, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 17, 2017
Summary: ORDER AND REASONS MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN , District Judge . Before the Court are requests for oral argument by the defendants on their motions to dismiss. 1 The requests are DENIED for the following reasons. It is the Court's policy to grant oral argument on motions if one of the following factors is present: 1. There is a need for an evidentiary hearing. 2. The motion or opposition papers involve a novel or complex issue of law that is unsettled. 3. The motion or opposition papers argue
Summary: ORDER AND REASONS MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN , District Judge . Before the Court are requests for oral argument by the defendants on their motions to dismiss. 1 The requests are DENIED for the following reasons. It is the Court's policy to grant oral argument on motions if one of the following factors is present: 1. There is a need for an evidentiary hearing. 2. The motion or opposition papers involve a novel or complex issue of law that is unsettled. 3. The motion or opposition papers argue ..
More
ORDER AND REASONS
MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN, District Judge.
Before the Court are requests for oral argument by the defendants on their motions to dismiss.1 The requests are DENIED for the following reasons.
It is the Court's policy to grant oral argument on motions if one of the following factors is present:
1. There is a need for an evidentiary hearing.
2. The motion or opposition papers involve a novel or complex issue of law that is unsettled.
3. The motion or opposition papers argue for a change in existing law.
4. The motion or opposition papers implicate a constitutional issue.
5. The case itself is of widespread community interest.
Because the defendants' motions to dismiss do not involve any of the above factors, IT IS ORDERED: that their requests for oral argument on their motions are DENIED.
FootNotes
1. Dr. Boudreaux requests oral argument (Record Document 22) on his motion to dismiss (Record Document 21), and the Ochsner entities request oral argument (Record Document 26) on their motion to dismiss (Record Document 25).
Source: Leagle
