Stipe v. Tregre, et al

Filing 55

ORDER & REASONS granting in part and denying in part 34 Motion for Summary Judgment; dismissed as moot: 32 Motion for Injunctive Relief; 33 Motion in Limine; 44 Motion for Leave to File; and 47 Motion for Leave to File. All remaining claims against Defendant Princeton are likewise DISMISSED with prejudice, as success on such claims necessitated success on Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Tregre and Dailey. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 4/28/2016. (mmm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ENJOLI STIPE

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 15-2515

MICHAEL TREGRE, ET AL.

SECTION “B”(2)
ORDER AND REASONS

Before
(“Tregre”)

the
and

Court
Deputy

is

Defendants’,

Steven

Dailey

Sheriff

Michael

(“Dailey”),

Tregre

“Motion

for

Summary Judgment” (Rec. Doc. 34), seeking dismissal of all claims
against them and an award of attorney’s fees and costs, including
expert fees. Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s, Enjoli Stipe,
“Motion for Injunctive Relief” (Rec. Doc. 32) and “Motion in Limine
(Judicial

Notice)”

(Rec.

Doc.

33),

Defendants’

responsive

pleadings thereto (Rec. Docs. 35-36), and Plaintiff’s motions for
leave to file replies (Rec. Docs. 44, 47). As set forth more fully
herein, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and Plaintiff’s remaining
motions are DISMISSED AS MOOT.
As to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Local Rule 7.5
of the Eastern District of Louisiana requires that memoranda in
opposition with citations of authorities be filed and served no
later than eight (8) days before the noticed submission date. The
instant motion was noticed for submission on April 27, 2016. As
such, any opposition by Plaintiff was due on or before April 19,

2016. No memoranda in opposition to the instant motion have been
filed. Additionally, no motions to continue the submission date
have been filed, nor have any motions for extension of time to
oppose the motion. Thus, the motion is deemed to be unopposed. It
further appears to this Court that the motion has merit, subject
to one caveat as will be noted. First, although there are many
noted factual disputes in the record, there are no genuine issues
of material fact as to the elements necessary for Plaintiff’s
claims to prevail. Accepting Defendants’ “Statement of Undisputed
Material Facts” (Rec. Doc. 34-1) as true in the absence of any
objection on behalf of Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s various claims must
be dismissed.
Specifically,

Plaintiff

cannot

prevail

on

her

claim

for

intentional infliction of emotional distress under Louisiana state
law as to either Defendant, as she has not shown “(1) that the
conduct of the defendant was extreme and outrageous; (2) that the
emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff was severe; and (3)
that the defendant desired to inflict severe emotional distress or
knew

that

severe

substantially

emotional

certain

to

distress

result

from

would
his

be

certain

conduct.”

White

or
v.

Monsanto Co., 585 So. 2d 1205, 1209 (La. 1991). Additionally,
Plaintiff’s federal law claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
Defendants in their individual capacity must fail as Plaintiff has
not shown that the conduct was objectively unreasonable in light

2

of clearly established law at the time the challenged conduct
occurred, so as to deprive Defendants of qualified immunity.
Anderson

v.

Plaintiff’s

Creighton,
claim

483

against

U.S.

635,

Defendant

639

Tregre

(1987).

Finally,

in

official

his

capacity cannot succeed as she has not shown that there exists “an
official policy promulgated by the municipality's policymaker” or
that such a policy “was the moving force behind, or actual cause
of,” her alleged injury. James v. Harris Cty., 577 F.3d 612, 617
(5th Cir. 2009). As such, all of Plaintiff’s claims must be
dismissed.
Defendants have not provided justification for this Court to
award

fees

and

costs

pursuant

to

42

U.S.C.

§

1988(b)-(c).

Particularly, though 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) allows for the Court, in
its discretion, to award attorney’s fees to a prevailing party in
a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit, “prevailing defendants are entitled to
attorney

fees

only

when

a

plaintiff's

underlying

claim

is

frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.” United States v. State of
Miss., 921 F.2d 604, 609 (5th Cir. 1991) (emphasis in original).
Defendants have provided no support for this Court to hold that
Plaintiff’s underlying claims were any of these, other than by
demonstrating that Plaintiff cannot prevail. Plaintiff’s ultimate
defeat is immaterial, as “[w]e review frivolity by asking whether
the case was so lacking in merit that it was groundless, rather
than whether the claim was ultimately successful.” Id. In the

3

absence of any support, this Court declines to award attorney’s
fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). Additionally, Defendants are
not entitled to expert fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(c), as it is
inapplicable to actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Having concluded that Plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed,
there

is

no

need

for

this

Court

to

review

Plaintiff’s

aforementioned motions which were likewise noticed for submission
on April 27, 2016, nor her corresponding motions for leave to file
replies to Defendants’ timely oppositions. These motions are now
moot.

Additionally,

Plaintiff’s

claims

against

the

remaining

Defendant, Princeton Excess and Surplus Lines Insurance Company
(“Princeton”),

must

be

dismissed

as

success

on

such

claims

necessitated success on Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants
Tregre and Dailey.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that:
(1)
is

Defendants’ “Motion for Summary Judgment” (Rec. Doc. 34)

GRANTED

in

part,

insofar

as

Plaintiff’s

claims

against

Defendants Tregre and Dailey in the above-captioned action are
hereby DISMISSED with prejudice;
(2)

Defendants’ “Motion for Summary Judgment” (Rec. Doc. 34)

is DENIED in part, to the extent that Defendants are not entitled
to fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b)-(c);
(3)

Plaintiff’s “Motion for Injunctive Relief” (Rec. Doc.

32) and “Motion in Limine (Judicial Notice)” (Rec. Doc. 33), as

4

well as her corresponding motions for leave to file replies (Rec.
Docs. 44, 47) are DISMISSED AS MOOT; and
(4)

All remaining claims against Defendant Princeton are

likewise DISMISSED with prejudice, as success on such claims
necessitated success on Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants
Tregre and Dailey.
A motion for reconsideration of this order based on the
appropriate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, if any, must be filed
within thirty (30) days of the filing of this Order. The motion
must be accompanied by opposition memoranda to the original motion.
Because such a motion would not have been necessary had timely
opposition memoranda been filed, the costs incurred in connection
with the motion, including attorney's fees, will be assessed
against the party moving for reconsideration. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
16, 83. A statement of costs conforming to Local Rule 54.3 shall
be submitted by all parties desiring to be awarded costs and
attorney's fees no later than eight (8) days prior to the noticed
submission date of the motion for reconsideration.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 28th day of April, 2016.

____________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5