Costanza v. Jefferson Parish et al
ORDER AND REASONS - For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendants' motions to dismiss 23 , 25 and DENIES defendants' motion to stay 26 . Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 6/26/2017. (cg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KATHERINE P. COSTANZA
JEFFERSON PARISH, ET AL.
SECTION “R” (2)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court are defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiff’s claims
in part, 1 and defendants’ motion to stay.2 For the following reasons, the
Court grants defendants’ motions to dismiss and denies defendants’ motion
Plaintiff Katherine Costanza has been employed as a civil servant by
Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, for over 24 years.3 According to her complaint,
she was promoted from her position as Environmental Quality Supervisor to
Assistant Director for Environmental Affairs on July 31, 2006. 4
December 26, 2015, Costanza was demoted from her position as Assistant
R. Docs. 23 and 25.
R. Doc. 26.
R. Doc. 1 at 3.
Director to Administrative Management Specialist with the Division of
Public Works Administration. 5 Plaintiff alleges that she was demoted to
allow Margaret Winter to return to the position of Assistant Director. 6
Plaintiff further alleges that Winter was the Assistant Director 25 years ago,
but she took a leave of absence to become the Director of Environmental
Affairs.7 When a recent change in the Jefferson Parish Administration
resulted in Winter’s losing her position as Director, she was allowed to return
to the Assistant Director position, ousting Costanza. 8 According to Costanza,
Winter made the decision to demote Costanza with Jefferson Parish
employees John Dumas, Kazem Alikhani, and Lauren Call. 9
Costanza alleges that a “devastating” decrease in pay accompanied her
demotion, as her pay grade was reduced from 40 to 28, resulting in a
decrease in salary of approximately $15,000 annually. 10 Her new salary is
also capped at a number significantly lower than the cap for the Assistant
Id. at 4.
Id. at 5.
Id. at 4.
Director position. 11 Plaintiff further alleges that this annual reduction will
lead to a corresponding reduction in her pension and benefits.12
On January 25, 2016, plaintiff filed an administrative appeal of her
demotion with the Jefferson Parish Personnel Board. 13 While that challenge
was pending, on December 21, 2016, plaintiff filed this action against
Jefferson Parish, the Jefferson Parish Personnel Department, the Jefferson
Parish Department of Environmental Affairs, the Jefferson Parish
Department of Public Works, Dumas (in his individual and official
capacities), Winter (in her individual and official capacities), Alikhani (in his
individual and official capacities), and Call (in her individual and official
capacities).14 Plaintiff asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that
her demotion violates her substantive and procedural due process rights, as
well as her rights under the Equal Protection Clause. 15 She also asserts that
she was wrongfully demoted under Louisiana law. 16
declaratory and injunctive relief (in the form of reinstatement and backpay),
as well as damages. 17
R. Doc. 26-3.
R. Doc. 1 at 1-2.
Id. at 5-7.
Id. at 8.
Id. at 7-9.
Defendants now move to dismiss with prejudice the claims against
Jefferson Parish Personnel Department, Jefferson Parish Department of
Environmental Affairs, and the Jefferson Parish Department of Public
Works,18 as well as the official capacity claims against Dumas, Winter,
Alikhani, and Call. 19 Defendants have also moved to stay this case pending
the resolution of plaintiff’s state administrative proceeding. 20 Plaintiff has
no opposition to both motions to dismiss but opposes defendants’ motion to
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead
“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially
plausible when the plaintiff pleads facts that allow the court to “draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Id. A court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the
R. Doc. 23.
R. Doc. 25.
R. Doc. 26.
R. Doc. 29; R. Doc. 30.
light most favorable to the plaintiff. Gines v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 699 F.3d
812, 816 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495
F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007)). But a court is not bound to accept as true legal
conclusions couched as factual allegations. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
A legally sufficient complaint must establish more than a “sheer
possibility” that the plaintiff’s claim is true. Id. It need not contain detailed
factual allegations, but it must go beyond labels, legal conclusions, or
formulaic recitations of the elements of a cause of action. Id. (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In other words, the face of the complaint must
contain enough factual matter to raise a reasonable expectation that
discovery will reveal evidence of each element of the plaintiff’s claim.
Lormand v. U.S. Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 257 (5th Cir. 2009). If there
are insufficient factual allegations to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level, Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, or if it is apparent from the face
of the complaint that there is an insuperable bar to relief, see Jones v. Bock,
549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007); Carbe v. Lappin, 492 F.3d 325, 328 n.9 (5th Cir.
2007), the claim must be dismissed.
Motions to Dismiss
First, defendants argue that the claims against Jefferson Parish
Personnel Department, Jefferson Parish Department of Environmental
Affairs, and Jefferson Parish Department of Public Works must be dismissed
because they are not juridical entities capable of suing or being sued. Rule
17(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the capacity to sue
or be sued is determined by “the law of the state where the court is located.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b). Under Louisiana law, “a government body may not be
sued if it is merely a dependent sub-body of a larger government agency.”
Jefferson v. Delgado Cmty. Coll., No. 13-2626, 2013 WL 5530337, at *1 (E.D.
La. Oct. 7, 2013) (citing Dejoie v. Medley, 945 So. 2d 968, 972 (La. App. 2
The Louisiana Supreme Court has adopted a functional
approach to determining whether a governmental body is a separate and
distinct juridical person, asking if the body has “the legal capacity to function
independently and not just as the agency or division of another governmental
entity.” Roberts v. Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans, 634 So. 2d
341, 347 (La. 1994) (citations omitted).
Here, Jefferson Parish is organized pursuant to a home rule charter, as
authorized by Article VI, Section 4 of the Louisiana Constitution. See La.
Const. art. VI, § 4. Article 1 of the Home Rule Charter of Jefferson Parish
provides the parish with “all the powers, rights, privileges, and authority” to
which it is entitled under the Louisiana Constitution. Jefferson Parish Home
Rule Charter, Art. 1, § 1.01. In addition, the charter designates the Parish
President as the chief administrative officer of the parish, responsible for the
“administration and supervision of all parish departments, offices, agencies,
and special districts.” Id. § 3.03. The Parish President also has the authority
to appoint and remove all administrative officers and employees. Id.
Accordingly, under the Jefferson Parish Home Charter, these
departmental defendants do not function independently of the Jefferson
Parish President. As such, these departmental defendants lack the capacity
to sue or be sued, and the claims against them must be dismissed with
prejudice. See, e.g., Causey v. Par. of Tangipahoa, 167 F. Supp. 2d 898, 909
(E.D. La. 2001) (finding that “City of Hammond Police Department is merely
a department within the City of Hammond, and not a proper party
defendant”); Manley v. State of Louisiana, No. 00-1939, 2001 WL 506175,
at *2 (E.D. La. May 11, 2001) (“The Court dismisses plaintiff’s claims against
the New Orleans Police Department because it is simply a department of the
City government and is not amenable to suit.”) (citations omitted).
Next, defendants argue that the official capacity claims against the
individual defendants must be dismissed because they are duplicative of
Costanza’s claims against Jefferson Parish. As defendants correctly state, in
section 1983 actions, claims against individuals in their official capacity are
treated as claims against the municipality. See, e.g., Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S.
21, 25 (1991) (citing Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165 (1985)).
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges the same claims against all defendants, and
makes no distinction between the acts of Jefferson Parish and the acts of the
individual defendants, in either their individual or official capacities.
Therefore, the official capacity claims against the individual defendants are
duplicative of the claims against Jefferson Parish. Plaintiff cannot maintain
an action both against the individual defendants in their official capacities
and Jefferson Parish, as this would allow the municipal defendant to be liable
twice for the same alleged conduct. LaMartina-Howell v. St. Tammany Par.
Sch. Bd., No. 07-1168, 2009 WL 3837323, at *4 (E.D. La. Nov. 12, 2009)
(citing Castro Romero v. Becken, 256 F.3d 349, 355 (5th Cir. 2001)).
Accordingly, plaintiffs’ official capacity claims against Dumas, Winter,
Alikhani, and Call are dismissed with prejudice.
Motion to Stay
Defendants also move to stay this case pending the resolution of
plaintiff’s state administrative proceedings. Federal courts have a “virtual
unflagging obligation . . . to exercise the jurisdiction given them.” Colo. River
Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976)
(citations omitted). “However, in ‘extraordinary and narrow’ circumstances,
a district court may abstain from exercising jurisdiction over a case when
there is a concurrent state proceeding . . . .” Murphy v. Uncle Ben’s, Inc., 168
F.3d 734, 737 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Colo. River, 424 U.S. at 813). The
court’s decision whether to abstain should be based on considerations of
“[w]ise judicial administration, giving regard to conservation of judicial
resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation.”
Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equip. Co., 342 U.S. 180, 183 (1952)).
For a court to abstain from exercising jurisdiction under the Colorado
River doctrine, it first must find that the federal and state court actions are
“parallel.” Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Costa Lines Cargo Servs., Inc.,
903 F.2d 352, 360 (5th Cir. 1990). Generally, actions are parallel when the
same parties are litigating the same issues. See Republicbank Dallas, Nat’l
Ass’n v. McIntosh, 828 F.2d 1120, 1121 (5th Cir. 1987). But the Fifth Circuit
has rejected the argument that the parties and issues must be completely
identical for the action to be parallel. See Brown v. Pacific Life Ins. Co., 462
F.3d 384, 395 n.7 (5th Cir. 2006) (noting that “‘there need not be applied in
every instance a mincing insistence on precise identity’ of parties and
issues”) (quoting McIntosh, 828 F.2d at 1121); accord Polu Kai Servs., LLC
v. Ins. Co. of State of Pa., No. 06-10708, 2007 WL 716115, at *2 (E.D. La.
Mar. 6, 2007) (finding actions parallel despite the presence of additional
issues in the state court litigation and despite that the state court plaintiff
was not a party in federal action).
Here, both the federal and state
proceedings revolve around Costanza’s demotion, and though her state
action named only the Jefferson Parish Department of Public Works as a
defendant, she ultimately seeks to hold the same body (Jefferson Parish)
liable for the same alleged wrongs. Further, in both cases, she asserts that
Jefferson Parish violated her substantive and procedural due process rights,
and that Section 6.1 of the Jefferson Parish Personnel Rules is
unconstitutionally void for vagueness and overbreadth.22 Thus, the Court
finds that the two actions are parallel. See Kenner Acquisitions, LLC v.
BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., No. 06-3927, 2007 WL 625833, at *2
(E.D. La. Feb. 26, 2007) (finding actions parallel where the proceedings
Compare R. Doc. 1 at 5-7 with R. Doc. 26-3 at 5-6.
consisted of “substantially the same parties litigating substantially the same
issues”) (citation omitted); Polu Kai, 2007 WL 716115, at *2.
The Court next must determine whether exceptional circumstances
exist that would permit the court to decline jurisdiction in the instant matter.
See Murphy, 168 F.3d at 738. The Supreme Court has set forth six factors to
guide this inquiry: (1) assumption by either court of jurisdiction over a res;
(2) the relative inconvenience of the forums; (3) the avoidance of piecemeal
litigation; (4) the order in which jurisdiction was obtained by the concurrent
forums; (5) whether and to what extent federal law provides the rules of
decision on the merits; and (6) the adequacy of the state proceedings to
protect the rights of the party invoking federal jurisdiction. Wilton v. Seven
Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 285-86 (1995). “No one factor is necessarily
determinative; a carefully considered judgment taking into account both the
obligation to exercise jurisdiction and the combination of factors counseling
against that exercise is required.” Colo. River, 424 U.S. at 818-19. The Court
must balance the factors carefully, “with the balance heavily weighted in
favor of the exercise of jurisdiction.” Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury
Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 16 (1983).
Assumption by Either Court of Jurisdiction Over a Res
Neither this Court nor the state tribunal has assumed jurisdiction over
any res or property in this case. The absence of this factor, however, is not
neutral. See Murphy, 168 F.3d at 738. Rather, it weighs against abstention.
The Court declines defendants’ invitation to ignore binding circuit
precedent, and will not follow courts beyond this Circuit that have treated
this factor as neutral in situations like this.
Cf. Reiseck v. Universal
Commc’ns of Miami, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1295, 1305 (S.D. Fla. 2015) (finding
first factor neutral when case did not involve property).
The Relative Inconvenience of the Forums
Both the federal and the state tribunal are located in the New Orleans,
Louisiana metropolitan area. Therefore, neither forum is more or less
convenient than the other. The absence of any inconvenience weighs against
abstention.23 Murphy, 168 F.3d at 738; Gammon v. McLain, No. 14-1184,
Defendants contend that the Jefferson Parish Personnel Board is
closer to the location of the majority of defendants and therefore the federal
court is more inconvenient. R. Doc. 26-2 at 7. While the Board may be
closer, the locations are less than 9 miles apart, and any slight inconvenience
from this additional distance does not rise to a level sufficient to favor
Defendants’ reply cites an unpublished case from the Western District
of Louisiana, Royal Manufactured Homes, LLC v. New Hampshire Ins. Co.,
2012 WL 704086 (W.D. La. Mar. 1, 2012), to argue that this factor does not
weigh against abstention but is actually neutral. Royal is contrary to binding
2015 WL 160449, at *2 (E.D. La. Jan. 13, 2015) (“Both the federal and state
proceedings are located in southeastern Louisiana. Therefore, neither forum
is more or less convenient than the other. The absence of this factor weighs
against abstention.”) (citation omitted).
The Avoidance of Piecemeal Litigation
The animating concern at the heart of this factor is the “avoidance of
piecemeal litigation, and the concomitant danger of inconsistent rulings with
respect to a piece of property.” Black Sea Inv., Ltd. v. United Heritage Corp.,
204 F.3d 647, 650 (5th Cir. 2000) (emphasis in original).
“prevention of duplicative litigation is not a factor to be considered in an
abstention determination.” Evanston Ins. Co. v. Jimco, Inc., 844 F.2d 1185,
1192 (5th Cir. 1988) (citing Colo. River, 424 U.S. at 817) (emphasis added).
This is because “[d]uplicative litigation, wasteful though it may be, is a
necessary cost of our nation’s maintenance of two separate and distinct
judicial systems possessed of frequently overlapping jurisdiction.” Black Sea
Inv., Ltd. v. United Heritage Corp., 204 F.3d 647, 650 (5th Cir. 2000)
(emphasis in original).
Fifth Circuit precedent. See, e.g., Murphy, 168 F.3d at 738; Stewart v.
Western Heritage Ins. Co., 438 F.3d 488, 492 (5th Cir. 2006); Black Sea
Inv., Ltd. v. United Heritage Corp., 204 F.3d 647, 650 (5th Cir. 2000).
Although Fifth Circuit cases have implied that “there is no such
danger” of piecemeal litigation when there is no res or property involved, id.
at 651 (citing Evanston Ins. Co., 844 F.2d at 1192), that there is no res or
property involved is not dispositive and does not automatically mean there
is no potential for piecemeal litigation. See Stewart v. Western Heritage Ins.
Co., 438 F.3d 488, 492 (5th Cir. 2006); Saucier v. Aviva Life and Annuity
Co., 701 F.3d 458, 463-64 (5th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, that there is no res
or property at issue here does not end the inquiry.
Here, the federal and state actions involve the same plaintiff, similar
defendants, and substantially the same issues, namely, whether Costanza’s
demotion violated her due process rights. As the Fifth Circuit has explained,
the concern with piecemeal litigation arises where parallel lawsuits “‘pose
a risk of inconsistent outcomes not preventable by principles of res judicata
and collateral estoppel.” Saucier v. Aviva Life and Annuity Co., 701 F.3d
458, 464 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Woodford v. Cmty. Action Agency of
Greene Cty., Inc., 239 F.3d 517, 524 (2d Cir. 2001)).24 And while it is true
that any time duplicative litigation exists, the possibility of inconsistent
The classic example of piecemeal litigation arises “where all of
the potentially liable defendants are parties in one lawsuit, but in the other
lawsuit, one defendant seeks a declaration of nonliability and the other
potentially liable parties are not parties.” Saucier, 701 F.3d at 464 (quoting
Woodford, 239 F.3d at 524).
judgments also exists, this possibility is not a valid reason by itself to abstain.
See Kelly Inv., Inc. v. Cont’l Common Corp., 315 F.3d 494, 498 (5th Cir.
Defendants acknowledge the distinction between piecemeal and
duplicative litigation, but argue that the litigation is piecemeal because
plaintiff’s federal suit is against defendants that are not parties in the state
action and asserts a claim not before the state court (the Equal Protection
claim). As defendants correctly assert, there is some potential for piecemeal
litigation here. See Stewart, 438 F.3d at 492 (noting potential for piecemeal
litigation when state court was only forum hearing breach of fiduciary claim
and only forum hearing claims against a specific defendant). Nevertheless,
in many situations principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel can
eliminate the problem of inconsistent judgments on the duplicative issues.
See Kelly, 315 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir. 2002) (acknowledging the possibility
of piecemeal litigation but noting that if “one court render[s] judgment
before the other, res judicata will ensure proper order” and mitigate the
concern); Saucier, 701 F.3d at 464. Unfortunately, neither party has briefed
the issue of the applicability vel non of res judicata or collateral estoppel
(including which law, state or federal, would govern the issue). Because it is
not clear on this record that the risk of piecemeal litigation can be avoided
here, this factor favors abstention.
The Order in Which Jurisdiction Was Obtained by the
The Supreme Court has stated that “priority should not be measured
exclusively by which complaint was filed first, but rather in terms of how
much progress has been made in the two actions.” Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S.
at 21. Here, the state court petition was filed on January 25, 2016, and was
pending for more than 11 months before this federal lawsuit was filed on
December 21, 2016. 25 In the state tribunal, the parties have exchanged
written discovery and have substantially completed the administrative
action. 26 Aside from the filing of plaintiff’s complaint, there has not been
much progress in the federal action. 27 Thus, this factor favors abstention.
See Shermohmad v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., No. 06-6072, 2006 WL 2513398, at
*4 (E.D. La. Aug. 25, 2006) (fact that state action has progressed further
favors abstention); cf. Stewart, 438 F.3d at 493 (noting that when federal
Compare R. Doc. 26-3 at 2 with R. Doc. 1.
R. Doc. 26-2 at 3, 9.
Most defendants in the federal action were not served until
March 16, 2017, and their answers were not due until April 7, 2017. No
scheduling order has been entered in this case.
“case has clearly progressed further . . . this factor favors federal
Whether and to What Extent Federal Law Provides the
Rules of Decision on the Merits
Although both actions assert that Costanza was wrongfully demoted
under Louisiana law, Costanza’s primary argument in both cases is that her
demotion violated her constitutionally protected due process rights. The
Supreme Court has noted that although “in some rare circumstances the
presence of state-law issues may weigh in favor of [abstention], the presence
of federal-law issues must always be a major consideration weighing against
[abstention].” Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 26. Defendants assert that these
“rare circumstances” are met here, because Costanza’s lawsuit also seeks to
misunderstands the Court’s task, which is not to find “some substantial
reason for the exercise of federal jurisdiction by the district court; . . . [but]
to ascertain whether there exist ‘exceptional’ circumstances, the ‘clearest of
justifications,’ that can suffice under Colorado River to justify the surrender
of that jurisdiction.” Id. at 25-26 (emphasis in original) (quoting Colo. River,
424 U.S. at 819). Further, Costanza does not merely seek an interpretation
R. Doc. 26-2 at 10.
of the Personnel Rule, she is a making a federal constitutional challenge to
the rule. That the Court may be called upon to interpret a Jefferson Parish
Personnel Rule is not sufficiently rare or exceptional to warrant abstention,
especially when the rule is attacked under federal law. Thus, the strong
presence of federal law issues here weighs against abstention. 29
The Adequacy of the State Proceedings in Protecting the
Rights of the Party Invoking Federal Jurisdiction
Plaintiff asserts that because her claims are federal, a federal court will
be “in a superior position” to hear her claims. 30 But this factor does not turn
on either court’s “superiority,” and plaintiff fails to make any argument that
her rights will not be protected in the state tribunal or that the tribunal is
inadequate.31 Still, under Fifth Circuit precedent this factor “‘can only be a
neutral factor or one that weighs against, not for, abstention.’” Black Sea,
204 F.3d at 651 (quoting Evanston, 844 F.2d at 1193). Although courts
beyond this Circuit have treated the adequacy of the state proceedings as
favoring abstention, see Goldentree Asset Mgmt., L.P. v. Longaberger Co.,
Contrary to defendants’ assertion, Parham v. Nationstar
Mortg., LLC, No. 14-3376, 2016 WL 4402046 (W.D. La. Aug. 17, 2016), is
inapposite. There, not only was it unclear if the plaintiff asserted a federal
claim, but also state law issues predominated in the lawsuit. Id. at *4.
R. Doc. 30 at 10.
In any event, the state tribunal is “presumptively competent to
adjudicate claims arising under the laws of the United States.” Tafflin v.
Levitt, 493 U.S. 455, 458 (1990).
448 F. Supp. 2d 589, 595 (S.D.N.Y. 2006), the Court is bound by the Fifth
Circuit’s holding that this factor cannot weigh in favor of abstention. Thus,
this factor is neutral.
Summary of Colorado River Factors
The Court finds that three factors weigh against abstention, and one
factor is neutral.
Although the piecemeal litigation factor somewhat
supports abstention, this conclusion could change with sufficient
information to permit a full examination of res judicata and collateral
estoppel issues. And while the order in which jurisdiction was obtained also
supports abstention, that the state tribunal has not decided any issues
weakens that support. Cf. Gates v. Gusman, 15-3898, 2016 WL 4010980, at
*4 (E.D. La. July 27, 2016) (state court decided an issue on the merits);
Mahbod v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., No. 05-3266, 2006 WL 2513423, at *4-5 (E.D.
La. Aug. 25, 2006) (order-of-jurisdiction-factor strongly favored abstention
because state court had rendered judgment and was on appeal). On balance,
the Court finds that the “extraordinary circumstances” required for the Court
to abstain from its “virtually unflagging obligation” to exercise its jurisdiction
are not present here. Colo. River, 424 U.S. at 813, 818. Thus, a stay is
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motions to
dismiss and DENIES defendants’ motion to stay.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of June, 2017.
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?