Kluksdahl v. Loyola University New Orleans
Filing
12
ORDER AND REASONS DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 10 Motion to Stay. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order that complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 in all respe cts and as set forth in document. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, following Plaintiff's compliance with the above directive, Defendant may reurge its motion for a stay so long as such motion adequately addresses the applicability of the Colorado River abstention doctrine and any other relevant authority. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 8/12/2016. (my)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOHN AARON KLUKSDAHL
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 16-2990
LOYOLA UNIVERSITY NEW ORLEANS
SECTION "B"(3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before
(“Loyola”)
the
motion
Court
is
seeking
Loyola
a
University
stay
of
the
New
Orleans’s
above-captioned
proceedings pending resolution of Plaintiff’s “identical claims in
state court.” Rec. Doc. 10 at 1. Defendant’s primary argument in
support of a stay is that, if forced to proceed in this federal
matter,
it
“overlapping
will
and
incur
unnecessary
unnecessary
expenses
proceedings.”
to
Id.
engage
at
5.
in
In
opposition, pro se plaintiff John Aaron Kluksdahl (“Plaintiff” or
“Kluksdahl”) accuses Loyola of misrepresenting that the entirety
of his claims were also pled in state court. Rec. Doc. 11 at 1.
Further, he contends that he would suffer great prejudice if this
Court grants a stay because the state court revoked his in forma
pauperis
status,
which
purportedly
precludes
him
from
filing
further pleadings.
This Court notes that, based on the parties’ filings, it
appears that Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United
States, 424 U.S. 800, 813 (1976), will likely govern the decision
of whether to issue a stay in this matter. See Transocean Offshore
1
USA, Inc. v. Catrette, 239 Fed. App’x 9, 2007 WL 129017, at *5
(5th
Cir.
2007)
(concluding
that
district
court
abused
its
discretion in not applying Colorado River to its analysis of a
motion to stay pending a parallel state court suit); Swift Transp.
Co., Inc. v. Veolia Water N. Am. Operating Servs., L.L.C., No. 079007, 2008 WL 5381397, at *1 (E.D. La. Dec. 19, 2008) (“A district
court’s decision to stay a matter when a federal and state law
suit are parallel, have the same parties and the same issues is
governed by Colorado River.”). However, the parties’ filings fail
to address the applicability of Colorado River in this instance—
in particular, they fail to specifically identify the similarities
(or lack thereof) between the issues in the two suits. See Am.
Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co. v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 408 F.3d 248,
251
(5th
Cir.
2005)
available
only
where
(“Colorado
the
state
River
and
discretion
federal
to
stay
proceedings
is
are
parallel—i.e., where the two suits involve the same parties and
the same issues.”)
The first problem in determining whether to abstain under
Colorado River is Plaintiff’s Complaint. Kluksdahl’s Complaint
consists of 130 pages1 of rambling, scattered arguments and factual
allegations, which unquestionably fail to include “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
1
Including exhibits, the Complaint totals 451 pages. Rec. Doc. 1.
2
to relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). See also Gordon v. Green, 602
F.2d 743, 745-46 (5th Cir. 1979) (concluding that trial courts
have “great leeway in determining whether a party has complied
with Rule 8” and finding that pleadings consisting of “verbose”
and “chaotic legal jargon” may violate Rule 8). Second, and perhaps
as a result of Plaintiff’s convoluted Complaint, Defendant fails
to specifically address Colorado River or the issues that are
common to both the state and federal suits. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to
reurge
pending
the
parties’
compliance
with
the
following
directives.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file an amended
complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order that
complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 in all respects.
Furthermore, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint shall comply fully with
the formatting requirements of Local Rule 10.1 and shall not exceed
twenty (20) pages. See Barnes v. Tumlinson, 597 Fed. App’x 798,
799 (5th Cir. 2015) (finding that it was within the district
court’s discretion to limit plaintiff’s voluminous pleadings to 30
pages); Cesarani v. Graham, 25 F.3d 1044, 1994 WL 261232, at *1-2
(5th
Cir.
1994)
(affirming
district
court’s
dismissal
of
plaintiff’s complaint when he failed to comply with order requiring
that he file an amended complaint of no more than 20 pages).
3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, following Plaintiff’s compliance
with the above directive, Defendant may reurge its motion for a
stay so long as such motion adequately addresses the applicability
of the Colorado River abstention doctrine and any other relevant
authority.
ANY PARTY’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN
SANCTIONS,
INCLUDING
DISMISSAL
OF
ALL
CLAIMS
AND/OR
DEFENSES
WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 12th day of August, 2016.
___________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?