Williams et al v. East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's Office et al

Filing 122

RULING granting 115 Sheriff Gautreaux's Motion for Summary Judgment and all of pltfs remaining claims against Sheriff Gautreaux, individually and in his official capacity, are DISMISSED. Joni Karras' 120 Motion to designate prior rulings as final and appealable is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 4/19/2011. (JDL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ROBIN WILLIAMS, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 09-148-JJB
EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH
SHERIFF’S OFFICE, ET AL.
RULING
This matter is before the Court on a motion for summary judgment (doc.
115) filed by Sheriff Sid. J. Gautreaux, III, individually and in his official capacity.
Plaintiffs Robin Williams and Trace Williams have filed no opposition to this
motion. Also before the court is a motion (doc. 120) by Joni Karras to designate
prior rulings as final and appealable. Oral argument is not necessary.
Robin and Trace Williams commenced this litigation by filing suit against
East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Sid Gautreaux, III, Riverdale
Commons Homeowner’s Association, Inc., and Joni Karras, alleging negligence,
gross negligence, fraud, conversion, unjust enrichment, malicious prosecution,
and various violations of 42 U.S.C. §1983. In previous rulings (docs. 85, 113),
this court dismissed all claims against Riverdale Commons and Joni Karras and
the majority of plaintiffs’ claims against Sheriff Gautreaux. In the present motion,
Sheriff Gautreaux, individually and in his official capacity, requests that summary
judgment be granted and that plaintiffs’ remaining claims against Sheriff
Gautreaux be dismissed.

1

Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, answers to
interrogatories, admissions, depositions, and affidavits on file indicate that there
is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322
(1986). When the burden at trial rests on the non-movant, the movant need only
demonstrate that the record lacks sufficient evidentiary support for the nonmovant’s case. See id. The movant may do so by showing that the evidence is
insufficient to prove the existence of one or more elements essential to the nonmovant’s case. Id.
Although the Court considers any disputed or unsettled facts in the light
most favorable to the non-movant, the non-movant may not rest merely on
allegations set forth in the pleadings. Instead, the non-movant must show that
there is a genuine issue for trial by presenting evidence of specific facts. See
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986).

Conclusory

allegations and unsubstantiated assertions will not satisfy a non-movant’s
burden. See Grimes v. Tex. Dep’t of Mental Health, 102 F.3d 137, 139-40 (5th
Cir. 1996). If, once a non-movant has been given the opportunity to raise a
genuine factual issue, no reasonable juror could find for the non-movant,
summary judgment will be granted. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322; see also Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(c).
In the present motion, defendant Gautreaux seeks dismissal of plaintiffs’
claims for malicious prosecution, conversion, fraud, and unjust enrichment.
2

Plaintiffs have not opposed this motion. Defendant Gautreaux correctly asserts
that there is no genuine issue of fact and that defendant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law on these remaining claims.

Plaintiffs have not provided

evidence to refute that each of plaintiffs’ arrests were based on information
obtained by victims and witnesses and in good faith by the deputies and that the
Sheriff and his deputies had probable cause for each arrest. Plaintiffs have thus
not established the presence of malice, nor the absence of probable cause.
Plaintiffs have also not offered evidence to refute defendant’s contention that
neither the Sheriff nor his deputies exercised or assumed any authority over
plaintiffs’ association dues, special assessment, or any other money collected.
As such, the Sheriff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on plaintiffs’ claims
for malicious prosecution, conversion, fraud, and unjust enrichment.
Accordingly, Sheriff Gautreaux’s motion (doc. 115) for summary judgment
is HEREBY GRANTED and all of plaintiffs’ remaining claims against Sheriff
Gautreaux, individually and in his official capacity, are hereby DISMISSED. Joni
Karras’ motion (doc. 120) is hereby DENIED AS MOOT.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on April 19, 2011.





JUDGE JAMES J. BRADY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

3