R Bend Estates II, L.L.C. et al v. St. John the Baptist Parish et al

Filing 19

ORDER AND REASONS - IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiffs shall file a memorandum in support of the Courts subject-matter jurisdiction over this action no later than Tuesday, July 19, 2016, at 5:00 p.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants may, in response to the memorandum filed by the Plaintiffs, file a memorandum challenging the Courts subject-matter jurisdiction no later than Tuesday, July 26, 2016, at 5:00 p.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall comply with the pretrial deadlines in this matter, as set forth herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
R BEND ESTATES II, LLC,
ET AL.,
Plaintiffs

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 15-4951

ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST
PARISH, ET AL.,
Defendants

SECTION: “E”(1)

ORDER AND REASONS
Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and must be raised by the court sua
sponte.1
On October 3, 2015, Plaintiffs, R Bend Estates II, LLC (“R Bend”), Pierre Gaudin,
and John Treme, filed this federal civil action against St. John the Baptist Parish and the
St. John the Baptist Parish Council. According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants have, on
more than one occasion, arbitrarily and capriciously refused to issue to them appropriate
zoning permits, which has prevented Plaintiffs from developing property they own in St.
John the Baptist Parish. The Plaintiffs allege violations of (1) the Takings Clause of the
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 4, of the
Louisiana Constitution; and (2) the due process and equal protection guarantees in both
the United States Constitution and the Louisiana Constitution.2
The Defendants filed their answer on December 10, 2015. The Defendants assert
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as an affirmative defense in their answer. 3

FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3); Lane v. Halliburton, 529 F.3d 548, 565 (5th Cir. 2008) (“We are duty-bound to
examine the basis of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte.”); Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 248 (5th Cir.
1996). See also Walker v. Teledyne Wah Chang, 423 F. Supp. 2d 647, 649 (S.D. Tex. 2003).
2 R. Doc. 1 at 7–8.
3 R. Doc. 12 at 6.
1

1

The Court finds there is a basis to question its subject-matter jurisdiction over this
matter, which involves a local zoning dispute that has not been fully litigated at the state
level. One of the claims asserted by the Plaintiffs is a takings claim under the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 4, of the Louisiana
Constitution. The Fifth Circuit and the courts within it generally recognize that takings
claims are not ripe in federal court until “(1) the relevant governmental unit has reached
a final decision as to what will be done with the property and (2) the plaintiff has sought
compensation through whatever adequate procedures the state provides.” 4 Likewise, due
process and equal protection claims are unripe in federal court if the claims rest solely on
rights afforded by the Takings Clause and are brought in conjunction with an unripe
takings claim.5
Because the Court must ensure that it has subject-matter jurisdiction, IT IS
ORDERED that the Plaintiffs shall file a memorandum in support of the Court’s subjectmatter jurisdiction over this action no later than Tuesday, July 19, 2016, at 5:00 p.m.
For guidance in considering these subject-matter jurisdiction issues, the Court refers the
Plaintiffs to Bienville Quarters, LLC v. East Feliciana Parish Police Jury, No. 07-158JJB-DLD, 2010 WL 2653317 (M.D. La. June 25, 2010).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants may, in response to the
memorandum filed by the Plaintiffs, file a memorandum challenging the Court’s subjectmatter jurisdiction no later than Tuesday, July 26, 2016, at 5:00 p.m.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall comply with the pretrial
deadlines in this matter, as set forth below:

Sandy Creek Investors, Ltd. v. City of Jonestown, 325 F.3d 623, 626 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing Williamson
Cnty. Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 194–95 (1985)).
5 See, e.g., John Corp. v. City of Houston, 214 F.3d 573, 584 (5th Cir. 2000).
4

2

Plaintiff’s expert reports

Delivered to defense counsel by June 20, 2016

Status Conference

July 7, 2016 at 2:00 p.m.

Defendant’s expert reports

Delivered to plaintiff’s counsel by July 19, 2016

Witness and exhibit lists

Filed and served upon opponents by July 19,
2016

Plaintiffs’ memorandum in support of
subject-matter jurisdiction

Filed and served no later than July 19, 2016 at
5:00 p.m.

Defendants’ memorandum, if any,
objecting to subject-matter jurisdiction
motion

Filed and served no later than July 26, 2016 at
5:00 p.m.

Depositions and discovery

Completed by August 16, 2016

Non-evidentiary pretrial motions and
motions in limine regarding the
admissibility of expert testimony

Filed and served no later than August 16, 2016
at 5:00 p.m.
See Scheduling Order at p. 2 regarding the
format of depositions.

Responses/oppositions to non-evidentiary
pretrial motions and motions in limine
regarding the admissibility of expert
testimony

Filed and served no later than August 23, 2016
at 5:00 p.m.

Pretrial order

Filed by September 9, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.
Any exhibits to be used solely for impeachment
must be presented to the Court for in camera
review by this deadline. See Section IX.10.b of the
pretrial notice

Pretrial conference

September 14, 2016 at 3:00 p.m.
Attended by lead attorney. (See Local Rule
11.2)

Motions in limine (other than those
regarding the admissibility of expert
testimony) and memoranda in support

Filed and served no later than September 15,
2016 at 5:00 p.m.

Responses to non-expert motions in limine
and memoranda in support

Filed and served no later than September 22,
2016 at 5:00 p.m.

Joint statement of the case

Filed by September 26, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.
See pretrial notice at p. 8

Joint jury instructions (or if agreement
cannot be reached, three sets of
instructions, as set forth in the pretrial
notice at p. 8)

Filed and emailed to the Court by September
26, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. See pretrial notice at p.
8

3

Joint proposed jury verdict form (or if
agreement cannot be reached, separate
proposed jury verdict forms and a joint
memorandum explaining the
disagreements between the parties as to
the verdict form).

Filed by September 26, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.
See pretrial notice at p. 8

Proposed special voir dire questions

Filed by September 26, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.
See pretrial notice at p. 8

Objections to exhibits and supporting
memoranda

Filed by September 26, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.
See pretrial notice at p. 5

Note: Each objection must identify the
relevant objected-to exhibit by the number
assigned to the exhibit in the joint bench
book(s). See pretrial notice at p. 5.
Two copies of joint bench book(s) of
tabbed exhibits, with indices of "objectedto" and "unobjected-to" exhibits,
identifying which party will offer each
exhibit and which witness will testify
regarding the exhibit at trial

Delivered to the Court by September 26, 2016
at 5:00 p.m. See pretrial notice at pp. 5-6

Trial memoranda

Filed by September 26, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.
See pretrial notice at pp. 8-9

Objections to deposition testimony and
supporting memoranda

Filed by September 26, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.
See pretrial notice at p. 6 with particular attention
to instructions
regarding the format of
depositions

Responses to objections to exhibits

Filed by September 28, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.
See pretrial notice at p. 5

Responses to objections to deposition
testimony

Filed by September 28, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.
See pretrial notice at p. 6.

If counsel intends to ask questions on
cross-examination of an economic expert
which require mathematical calculations

The factual elements of such questions shall be
submitted to the expert witness by September
28, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. See pretrial notice at p.
7.

List and brief description of any charts,
graphs, models, schematic diagrams, and
similar objects intended to be used in
opening statements or closing arguments

Provided to opposing counsel by September
28, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. See pretrial notice at p.
7

Objections to any charts, graphs, models,
schematic diagrams, and similar objects
intended to be used by opposing counsel in
opening statements or closing arguments

Filed by September 29, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.
See pretrial notice at p. 7

4

Jury trial

October 3, 2016 at 9:00 a.m.
(estimated to last 3 days)

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 12th day of July, 2016.
________________________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5