Moore et al v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board et al
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' 1500 objection is OVERRULED; and the Court Compliance Officer's (CCO) findings are AFFIRMED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the 1501 motion for an evidentiary hearing is DISMISSED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 1/9/2018.(jls)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
M.C. MOORE, ET AL.
TANGIPAHOA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL.
Position” (Rec. Doc. 1500) and “Plaintiffs’ Motion for Evidentiary
Hearing and Further Relief” (Rec. Doc. 1501),
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ objection (Rec. Doc. 1500) is
master’s conclusions of law de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)
concluded that Kim Notariano lacked standing
to bring a complaint under the court orders regarding staff hiring.
See Rec. Doc. 1500- 1 at 2 (referring to Rec. Doc. 866). The CCO
relied on an earlier Fifth Circuit decision in this case, which
held that non-parties lack
guarantees which require the establishment
school system,” Moore v. Tangipahoa Par.
Sch. Bd., 625 F.2d 33, 35 (5th Cir. 1980). See Rec. Doc. 1500-1 at
2. The CCO’s conclusion was correct because Mrs. Notariano’s
complaint alleges that the school board is retaliating against
discriminating on the basis of
gender. See Rec. Doc. 1500-2 at 4-5.
Such allegations do not create standing in the above-captioned
matter because they do not involve the constitutional interests
addressed by the Court’s staff hiring orders. See Moore, 625 F.2d
at 35; Rec. Doc. 866.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for an evidentiary
hearing (Rec. Doc. 1501) is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 9th day of January, 2018.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?