Taylor et al v. Denka Performance Elastomer LLC et al

Filing 105

ORDER AND REASONS: ORDERED that the plaintiff's 103 Request for oral argument is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing on the 86 Motion to Remand is hereby continued to September 5, 2018, on the papers. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 8/21/2018.(Reference: Both Cases)(clc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ROBERT TAYLOR, JR., ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

v.

NO. 17-7668
c/w 18-5739 1

DENKA PERFORMANCE ELASTOMER LLC, ET AL.

SECTION "F"

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Lydia Gerard’s request for oral argument
on her motion to remand, which is presently noticed for submission
on August 22, 2018.

The request is DENIED for the following

reasons.
It is the Court’s policy to grant oral argument on motions if
one of the following factors is present:
1.

There is a need for an evidentiary hearing.

2.

The motion or opposition papers involve a novel or

complex issue of law that is unsettled.
3.

The motion or opposition papers argue for a change in

existing law.

1

This Order pertains to Civil Action Number 18-5739.
1

4.

The motion or opposition papers implicate a

constitutional issue.
5.

The case itself is of widespread community interest.

Because the plaintiff’s motion to remand does not involve any
of the above factors, IT IS ORDERED: that the plaintiff’s request
for oral argument is DENIED. 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: that the

hearing on the motion to remand is hereby continued to September
5, 2018, on the papers.

New Orleans, Louisiana, August 21, 2018

______________________________
MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

In support of her request for oral argument, the plaintiff notes
that this case has received media attention. Indeed, the media
has been covering the now many cases filed against the defendants
concerning chloroprene emissions. However, the issues raised in
the motion to remand are purely legal issues that do not concern
the merits of the claims; no party suggests that the jurisdictional
issue presented by the motion -- whether the allegations satisfy
the jurisdictional amount in controversy required for this Court
to exercise diversity jurisdiction -- is a novel issue or one of
widespread community interest. The only issue is whether the case
will be heard by this Court or state court.
2
2