Dowdle v. MSE Construction et al
Filing
121
ORDER AND REASONS denying 91 Motion for Recusal ; denying 101 Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice. Signed by Judge Helen G. Berrigan on 09/30/2014. (kac)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ANTHONY DOWDLE
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 13‐498
MSE CONSTRUCTION,
MSE BUILDING CO., INC.,
GARY COFER, ET AL
SECTION ʺCʺ (5)
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant
MSE Building Co., Inc. is DENIED without prejudice. Rec. Doc. 101. Assuming that
MSE Building Co., Inc. is not named in the EEOC right‐to‐sue letter, the undisputed
facts indicate that counsel for MSE Building Co., Inc. previously represented MSE
Construction in this matter. Rec. Docs. 3 at 5, 7, 16. The Court notes that in granting the
motion for leave to file amending and superceding answer filed by MSE Building Co.,
Inc., the magistrate judge stated that ʺthe amendment appears merely to seek
clarification of the name of the correct defendant.ʺ Rec. Doc. 40. Instead, the motion
itself sought to ʺremov[e] all references to MSE Construction, as no such entity is related
to MSE Building Co., Inc., in any manner,ʺ and was filed shortly after the Court ruled
on a motion to dismiss filed by both and after MSE Construction filed an answer along
with MSE Building Co., Inc. Rec. Docs. 15, 16, 22. Therefore, the amendment to the
answer may have been sought, at least in part, to buttress the argument that the
previous joint representation was indicative of a relationship between the two. That
circumstance should be addressed in any future motion for summary judgment.
The memoranda attendant to this motion do not otherwise reveal the substance
of any EEOC complaint or whether, if the EEOC complaint was against MSE
Construction only, whether any MSE Building Co., Inc. personnel were involved in the
process. In light of the record and the fact that the plaintiff is proceeding pro se,
summary judgment is premature.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffʹs second motion to recuse
Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr. is DENIED. Rec. Doc. 91. The fact that the
magistrate has ruled against the plaintiff is not grounds for recusal.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 30th day of September, 2014.
____________________________________
HELEN G. BERRIGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
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?