Spells et al v. New Orleans City
Filing
25
ORDER AND REASONS denying 23 Motion for New Trial. Again, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 11/14/16. (clc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
WAYNE WALKER AS ADMINISTRATOR
OF THE SUCCESSIONS OF ARNETT
CALHOUN SPELLS, SR. AND ARNETT
CALHOUN SPELLS, JR.
CIVIL ACTION
V.
NO. 15-3823
THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS
SECTION "F"
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.
For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
Background
The successors to two record property owners brought suit
against the City of New Orleans.
The succession administrator, as
the newly-substituted plaintiff, alleges that the City violated
the presumptive heirs’ constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 when the City levied liens on the property because of the
blighted state of the immovable property. He charges that the City
did not give the heirs proper notice and this was a violation of
the heirs’ constitutional property rights.
The City of New Orleans commenced administrative proceedings
against the property under the blighted housing ordinance, Docket
No. 13-07111-PNBL, alleging the property was in violation of
Chapter 28 of the City Code of New Orleans. 1 An administrative
1
Section 28-38 of the Code of the City of New Orleans is entitled
“Blighted Property.”
1
judgment was rendered on August 14, 2014. The judgment assesses
fines of $3,300, a hearing fee of $75, and a recordation fee of
$80. Additionally, the judgment provides that additional fines of
$500 per day for one year following the judgment date are possible. 2
The
succession
administrator
alleges
that
this
judgment
deprives the presumptive heirs their rights secured under the
Constitution of the United States as well as under Louisiana state
law. In compliance with the Code of New Orleans, the City complied
with section 6-36, which covers the notice and service requirements
for an administrative proceeding. Specifically, the City attempted
to serve process on the record owners of the property by sending
notices via certified mail; the notices were returned to the City.
The succession
administrator
contends
that
the
administrative
proceeding is null because judgment was rendered against two
deceased individuals.
On October 3, 2016 this Court issued an Order and Reasons
granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). 3
The plaintiff now files a motion for a new trial, moving the
Court to vacate its judgment in favor of the defendant. The
2
If the City assessed this prospective fee for the entire one year
period, that would add $182,500 to the lien against the property.
3 The Court hereby adopts and incorporates its statement of facts
and reasoning from the Order and Reasons dated October 3, 2016
into this Order and Reasons.
2
plaintiff
alleges
that
the
Court
erred
in
finding
that
the
succession administrator lacked standing to bring a cause of action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court held that the heirs should have
brought the suit in their individual capacities, instead of the
succession administrator bringing this lawsuit. This conclusion
leads the plaintiff to urge the Court to accept the argument that,
had a judgment of possession been entered in favor of the heirs
and
had
the
heirs
waited
to
bring
suit
in
their
individual
capacities, then the Court’s reasoning would be moot. While the
Court did not find it necessary to consider the additional merits
of the case after determining the plaintiff lacked standing to
bring this § 1983 claim, it elaborates on its reasoning. 4
I.
Motions requesting reconsideration of court orders generally
fall under Rule 54(b), Rule 59(e), or Rule 60(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. See Higgins v. Cain, No. 07–9729, 2012
WL 3309716, at *1 (E.D. La. Aug. 13, 2012); Waste Mgmt. of La.,
Inc. v. River Birch, Inc., No. 11–2405, 2012 WL 876717, at *1 (E.D.
La. Mar. 14, 2012); Castrillo v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc.,
No. 09–4369, 2010 WL 1424398, at *3–4 (E.D. La. Apr. 5, 2010).
Rule 59(e) provides that a motion to alter or amend a judgment
4
The City of New Orleans filed no response or opposition to the
plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. However, the Court finds no
merit to the plaintiff’s current motion before the Court and
therefore does not grant the plaintiff’s motion as unopposed.
3
must be filed no later than twenty-eight days after the entry of
judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Rule 60(b), on the other hand,
applies to motions filed after the twenty-eight day period, but
demands more “exacting substantive requirements.” See Lavespere v.
Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 173–74 (5th Cir.
1990), abrogated on other grounds, Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37
F.3d 1069, 1078 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).
II.
“A Rule 59(e) motion ‘calls into question the correctness of
a judgment.’” Templet v. Hydrochem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478 (5th
Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Transtexas Gas Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 581
(5th Cir. 2002)). Because of the interest in finality, Rule 59(e)
motions may only be granted if the moving party shows there was a
mistake of law or fact or presents newly discovered evidence that
could not have been discovered previously. Id. at 478–79. Moreover,
Rule 59 motions should not be used to relitigate old matters, raise
new arguments, or submit evidence that could have been presented
earlier in the proceedings. See id. at 479; Rosenblatt v. United
Way of Greater Houston, 607 F.3d 413, 419 (5th Cir. 2010)(“[A]
motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) ‘must
clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must
present newly discovered evidence’ and ‘cannot be used to raise
arguments which could, and should, have been made before the
judgment issued.’”)(citing Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d
4
854, 864 (5th Cir. 2003)(quoting Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d
1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990)). The grant of such a motion is an
“extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.” Indep. Coca–
Cola Employees' Union of Lake Charles, No. 1060 v. Coca–Cola
Bottling Co. United, Inc., 114 F. App'x 137, 143 (5th Cir. Nov.
11, 2004) (citing Templet, 367 F.3d at 479). The Court must balance
two important judicial imperatives in deciding whether to reopen
a case in response to a motion for reconsideration: “(1) the need
to bring the litigation to an end; and (2) the need to render just
decisions on the basis of all the facts.” Templet, 367 F.3d at
479. 5
III.
The plaintiff fails to present a need for the Court to vacate
its original decision. The plaintiff failed to adequately dispute
a determinative provision in the Code of the City of New Orleans
in both its initial response to the defendant’s motion to dismiss
and also in its current motion before the Court.
For the sake of argument, the Court accepts the plaintiff’s
position that under the Court’s Order, if the heirs waited to sue
5
In its motion for a new trial, the plaintiff failed to explicitly
provide the legal standard for the Court to consider its motion.
The plaintiff asserts that the motion is “pursuant to Rule 59 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” The Court takes the liberty
of assuming the plaintiff specifically intended to move for a new
trial under Rule 59(e), which is a motion to alter or amend a
judgment.
5
in their individual capacity, then the Court’s reasoning would be
moot. But, the Court’s analysis does not end there. Assuming the
heirs sued, instead of the succession administrator, the result
would be the same.
The Court calls attention to section 6-36(c) of the Code of
the
City
of
requirement
New
that
Orleans.
the
This
City
must
section
follow
stipulates
before
the
notice
administrative
hearings commence. It states:
Prior to holding an administrative hearing pursuant
to this article, the alleged violator shall be notified
at least 15 days in advance of the date that such a
hearing is scheduled. Notice shall be personally served
or sent to the alleged violator by regular and certified
or registered U.S. Mail at the address listed in the
assessor’s office of the parish. . . . Any notification
so sent and returned by the U.S. Post Office shall be
considered
as
having
fulfilled
the
notification
requirement. Proof of notification and attempts at
service shall be entered in the record for each case
prior to the hearing.
Code of the City of New Orleans, Section 6-36(c) (emphasis added).
The record indicates that the City sent notices to the address
listed in the assessor’s office. The address, however, was still
that of the deceased property owners. As the Code notes, the fact
that the notices were returned to the City does not affect whether
the City properly served notice. The heirs did not take the
necessary steps to update the parish records to include a valid
6
mailing address. 6 Therefore, even had the proper plaintiff brought
this suit, the Court still finds grounds to dismiss the plaintiff’s
claim. One touchstone of standing is that the Court must be able
to
redress
the
plaintiff’s
complaint.
Lujan
v.
Defenders
of
Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). Here, the plaintiff fails
to state a cause of action that the Court is able to remedy. The
City properly followed the administrative procedures laid out in
the City Code. The Court finds that the burden is not on the City
to seek out other potential record property owners when notice of
a proceeding is returned. Because the City followed its procedures,
the Court cannot find that the due process rights of the heirs
were violated. Without presenting the Court with grounds that it
made a mistake of law or that there is now new evidence, the motion
fails.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for a
new
trial
is
hereby
DENIED.
Again,
the
plaintiff’s
claim
is
dismissed with prejudice.
New Orleans, Louisiana, November 14, 2016
______________________________
MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
The Court also notes that the hearing occurred in 2014, whereas
the death of the last record property owner occurred in 2007. The
Court finds there was ample time for an heir to take corrective
action to update the ownership of the property in the assessor’s
office.
7
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?