Spells et al v. New Orleans City
Filing
45
ORDER AND REASONS: ORDERED that this action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice and that the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, or in the alternative, motion for summary judgment is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 9/17/2018. (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 defendant’s motion for judgment on
the pleadings, or in the alternative, motion for summary judgment
to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint.
Because the plaintiff no
longer has standing, this action is hereby DISMISSED without
prejudice, and the defendant’s pending motion is DENIED as moot.
Background
This lawsuit arises out of action taken by the City of New
Orleans against blighted property and the events that followed.
In 2013, the City of New Orleans issued numerous citations
under the blighting housing ordinance against immovable property
located at 1522-24 Baronne Street, and a Code Enforcement hearing
was set for the following year.
At that time, the record owners
of the property were Arnette Calhoun Spells, Sr. and Arnette
Spells, Jr., who had passed away years earlier.
1
In an attempt to
notify the property owners of the hearing, the City mailed a notice
of hearing by certified and regular mail to the record owners’
address as indicated in the assessor’s office, as well as another
address ascertained through title research, and posted a notice on
a utility pole in front of the property.
However, the notices
were returned to the City.
After an administrative judgment was rendered assessing
fines against the property on August 24, 2014, John Spells, Ray
Spells, Darrell Walker, and Wayne Walker (the “presumptive heirs”)
filed suit against the City on August 27, 2015, alleging that the
judgment deprived them of their rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as
well as the Louisiana and United States constitutions.
Then, on
August 1, 2016, Wayne Walker, in his capacity as Administrator of
the Successions of Arnette Calhoun Spells, Sr. and Arnette Calhoun
Spells, Jr., was substituted as the proper plaintiff to stand in
the place of the original plaintiffs in this matter.
On August 25, 2016, the City filed Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)
motions to dismiss on the grounds that the succession administrator
lacked standing and failed to state a claim upon which relief could
be granted.
In its October 3, 2016 Orders and Reasons, this Court
granted the City’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, holding that “because the administrator could not
rightfully bring a wrongful death action, the administrator also
does not have standing to bring a civil rights action under 42
2
U.S.C. § 1983.”
As a result, this Court did not consider the
alternative Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
Later, the plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, which
this Court denied on November 14, 2016, after which he filed an
appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
On December 7, 2017, the Fifth Circuit held a hearing, and on
January 19, 2018, it vacated this Court’s judgment and remanded
the
suit,
reasoning
that
the
plaintiff,
as
the
succession
administrator, “has standing to the extent he seeks to enforce a
right of the succession.”
Walker v. New Orleans City, 709 Fed.
Appx. 303, 304 (5th Cir. 2018).
Thereafter, on August 7, 2018,
the City filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, or in the
alternative,
a
motion
for
summary
judgment
to
dismiss
the
plaintiff’s complaint, alleging that the plaintiff failed to state
a plausible deprivation of due process claim because the City
properly noticed the administrative hearing.
Meanwhile, the plaintiff moved to continue the defendant’s
pending motion.
On August 24, 2018, this Court granted the motion
to continue and reset the hearing date to September 19, 2018, on the
papers.
In support of his motion to continue, Wayne Walker
explained that he no longer has the authority to act on behalf of
the Successions of Arnette Calhoun Spells, Sr. and Arnette Calhoun
Spells, Jr.
Specifically, Walker related that, on August 8, 2018,
he was removed as the administrator of Arnette Calhoun Spells, Sr.
3
and Arnette Calhoun Spells, Jr. by court order rendered in Civil
District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, Case
No.16-5524 “C.”
I.
In vacating this Court’s judgment, the Fifth Circuit held
that Walker “has standing to the extent he seeks to enforce a right
of the succession.”
Walker v. New Orleans City, 709 Fed. Appx.
303, 304 (5th Cir. 2018).
In so holding, the Fifth Circuit
reasoned that, pursuant to the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure,
“‘the succession representative is . . . the proper plaintiff to
sue and enforce a right of the deceased or of his succession.’”
Id.
(quoting
La.
Code
Civ.
Proc.
art.
685).
Specifically,
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 685 provides:
Except as otherwise provided by law, the
succession representative appointed by a court
of this state is the proper plaintiff to sue
to enforce a right of the deceased or of his
succession,
while
the
latter
is
under
administration.
It is undisputed that the successions of Arnette Calhoun
Spells, Sr. and Arnette Calhoun Spells, Jr. are currently under
administration
and
Wayne
Walker,
as
administrator
of
the
successions of Arnette Calhoun Spells, Sr. and Arnette Calhoun
Spells, Jr., is the only plaintiff prosecuting this action.
In
light of Walker’s admission to this Court that he was removed as
the administrator of the Successions of Arnette Calhoun Spells,
4
Sr. and Arnette Calhoun Spells, Jr. on August 8, 2018 and that he
“no longer has the authority to act on behalf of the Successions,”
this Court finds that Walker no longer has standing to enforce the
rights of the Spells’ succession.
Accordingly,
IT
IS
ORDERED:
that
this
action
is
hereby
DISMISSED without prejudice and that the defendant’s motion for
judgment on the pleadings, or in the alternative, motion for
summary judgment is DENIED as moot.
New Orleans, Louisiana, September 17, 2018
_____________________________
MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
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?