Ducote Jax Holdings, L.L.C. et al v. JDC Group, Inc. et al

Filing 89

ORDERED that the Plaintiffs' 80 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. The amount of reasonable attorney's fees, if disputed, shall be determined on the parties' briefs. Plaintiffs' brief shall be submitted on or before May 24, 2011. Any opposition to Plaintiffs' brief shall be submitted on or before May 31, 2011. The Court will take the matter under submission on June 8, 2011. Signed by Judge Eldon E. Fallon on 5/10/11. (dno, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

DUCOTE JAX HOLDINGS, LLC ET AL.

*
*
*
*
*

VERSUS
JDC GROUP, INC. ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 07-9353
SECTION "L"(2)

ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiffs (Rec. Doc.
No. 80). In their motion, Plaintiffs argue that in light of Defendant John Manella’s testimony in
the criminal trial in United States v. Ohle et al., No. 08-1109 (S.D.N.Y. filed 2008), as well as
this Court’s findings in the related case of Ducote Jax Holdings LLC et al. v. Bradley, No. 041943, 2007 WL 2008505 (E.D. La. 2007), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 335
Fed. App’x. 392 (5th Cir. 2009), there is no longer any genuine issue of material fact as to the
liability of Defendants with respect to Plaintiffs’ remaining claims under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., and under Louisiana
law.1 As to the question of remedy, Plaintiffs seek damages in the amount of $552,000 plus
attorney’s fees, as well as “other and further relief to which they may be entitled.” Pls.’ Mot. at 3
(Rec. Doc. No. 80).
Local Rule 7.5 requires that memoranda in opposition to a motion be filed eight days

1

On January 12, 2009, the Court granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss
filed by Defendants, thereby dismissing Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim. See Rec. Doc. No.
64. On May 29, 2009, the Court denied a motion for reconsideration filed by Defendants and
ordered that the case remain stayed pending proceedings in the Southern District of New York.
See Rec. Doc. No. 74. The Court extended the stay through July 2, 2010. See Rec. Doc. No. 76.
1

prior to the submission date for the motion. Defendants have not filed any memorandum in
opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion. Accordingly, this motion is deemed to be unopposed, and
furthermore, it appearing that the motion is grounded in law and fact, IT IS ORDERED that
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. No. 80) is hereby GRANTED.
The Court notes that although Plaintiffs’ Complaint presents claims under both RICO
and Louisiana law, “duplicative damages [under RICO and state law] should not be allowed.”
Alcorn County, Miss. v. U.S. Interstate Supplies, Inc., 731 F.2d 1160, 1171 (5th Cir. 1984),
abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Cooper, 135 F.3d 960 (5th Cir. 1998). Thus,
there is no “other and further relief to which [Plaintiffs] may be entitled” beyond the amount of
$552,000 plus reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, which constitutes the relief that is available
under RICO, see 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), and that Plaintiffs have identified in their Motion for
Summary Judgment.
The amount of reasonable attorney’s fees, if disputed, shall be determined on the
parties’ briefs. Plaintiffs’ brief shall be submitted on or before May 24, 2011. Any opposition to
Plaintiffs’ brief shall be submitted on or before May 31, 2011. The Court will take the matter
under submission on June 8, 2011.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 10th day of May, 2011.

________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2