Moore et al v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board et al
Filing
1152
ORDER AND REASONS denying 1140 Motion for Contempt and Sanctions. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle. (ijg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOYCE MARIE MOORE, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 65-15556
TANGIPAHOA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL.
SECTION “B”(1)
ORDER AND REASONS
Nature of Motion and Relief Sought
Plaintiffs asks the Court "to order the defendants, the
Tangipahoa Parish School Board [("Board")] and its Superintendent
of Schools, Mark Kolwe," as well as "defendants' counsel of
record, individual members of the Board (Sandra Bailey-Simmons,
Gail Pittman-McDaniel, Eric Dangerfield, Al Link, Ann Smith,
Brett Duncan, Andy Anderson, Rose Dominguez, and Chris Cohea),
and the School Board’s Chief Financial Officer (Bret
Schnadelbach)" "to show cause why they should not be held in
contempt for their willful, premeditated delay and refusal to
comply with the orders of this Court." (Rec. Doc. No. 1140 at 12).
For the reasons stated below IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs'
Motion for Contempt and Sanctions is DENIED.
Analysis
Plaintiffs' Motion asks the Court to hold Defendants in
contempt for failing to comply with the Court's August 2, 2011
1
Order - which, in relevant part, ordered Defendants to take
"prompt steps to construct three new schools . . ."(Rec. Doc. No.
956). Plaintiffs' Motion lacks merit.
Plaintiffs rely heavily on Defendants' Motion to Modify
Desegregation Order: Student Assignment (Rec. Doc. No. 1117) which Plaintiffs claim was filed as mere "camouflage" to disguise
Defendants' attempts to defy the Courts' previous order. (Rec.
Doc. No. 1140 at 1). Plaintiffs' claim is disingenuous at best.
After Defendants' filed their Motion to Modify, Plaintiffs failed
to so much as file an opposition to the Motion. If, as Plaintiffs
claim, the Motion was a mere ruse intended to deceive the Court,
one would expect that Plaintiffs would have made those arguments
at the time. They did not. Instead, it was the Court that
determined the Motion should be denied without prejudice, with
specific instructions that the parties confer regarding the plan.
(Rec. Doc. No. 1131).
Plaintiffs' counsel, in his attempt to convince the Court
that the Board is currently acting in defiance of Court orders,
further ignores the procedural history surrounding the Motion to
Modify. The Court stated clearly in a February 5, 2013 Order that
the parties were to meet in an effort to determine if
modifications of prior Court orders were required, and could be
agreed to. (Rec. Doc. No. 1077). Further, when the Court
eventually denied the Motion to Modify, it again admonished both
2
sides that they must attempt to reach agreement on any
modification before submission to the Court. (Rec. Doc. No.
1131). Thus, the Court has not foreclosed that modification may
be appropriate - as Plaintiffs' counsel seems to assume - but
instead has consistently ordered that the parties seek to
amicably resolve any conflicts before requesting the Court's
involvement. If Plaintiffs continue to oppose modification after
conversations with Defendants, the proper forum for raising such
objection is in a formal opposition to Defendants' request to
modify - not in a motion for contempt. The Court finds no
contemptuous or sanctionable conduct by Defendants at this time.
Accordingly, and for the reasons enumerated above IT IS
ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Contempt and Sanctions is
DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 19th day of March, 2014.
______________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?