Johnson et al v. Ardoin

Filing 138

RULING denying 101 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 4/22/2020. (SWE)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JAMILA JOHNSON, et al.
Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION
3:18-cv-00625-SDD-EWD

v.
KYLE ARDOIN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY
AS LOUISIANA SECRETARY OF STATE
Defendant.

RULING
Before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration1 filed by the Defendant, Kyle
Ardoin, in his official capacity as the Secretary of State of Louisiana. The Motion is
opposed by the Plaintiffs, Jamilla Johnson, et al.2 Defendant moves the Court to
reconsider its Ruling denying the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint.3
Movant urges reconsideration on the grounds that a subsequent decision by the
Court of Appeal in Thomas v. Bryant,4 “directly impact[s] this Court’s denial of the
Motion to Dismiss.”5 Movant argues that “the Thomas Court addressed the issues of
laches and the requirements of a successful Section 2 claim”6 which present
“extraordinary circumstances” thereby justifying reconsideration under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b).

1

Rec. Doc. 101.
Rec. Doc. 121.
3
Rec. Doc. 68.
4
938 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2019).
5
Rec. Doc. 101-1.
6
Id.
2

60040 
Page 1 of 3 

I.

LAW AND ANALYSIS
In this District, “three major grounds” have been recognized as justifying

reconsideration: “(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new
evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.”7 Even
if Thomas v. Bryant8 could be characterized as an “intervening change in the law”, the
Court of Appeal “on the Court’s own motion, [determined] to rehear this case en banc.”9
Plaintiffs argue that “[b]ecause Bryant has been vacated, Defendant’s motion for
reconsideration is effectively based on no intervening event whatsoever. Thus, the
Court should dismiss Defendant’s Motion as moot rather than reaching the merits.”10
While pending rehearing, the Thomas case is arguably not an intervening
change in the law. Nonetheless, even reaching the merits the Court finds that the panel
decision in Thomas does not change the law and does not therefore mandate
reconsideration.
Regarding the doctrine of laches, the Court finds that Thomas does not change
the laches analysis. The laches inquiry, which asks whether Plaintiffs unreasonably
delayed asserting a claim or right to the prejudice of the Defendant, was applied by this
Court and it is still the legal standard. Accordingly, the Court denies reconsideration of
its laches holding.
As regards the substantive voting rights claim, the Defendant makes a
convoluted argument that Thomas somehow requires that Plaintiffs plead that there

7

Wagster v. Gautreaux, 2014 WL 46638, at *2 (M.D. La. 2014) (quoting J.M.C. v. La. Bd. of Elementary
and Secondary Educ., 584 F.Supp.2d 894, 896 (M.D. La. 2008)).
8
See supra, note 4.
9
Thomas v. Bryant, 939 F.3d 629 (5th Cir. 2019).
10
Rec. Doc. 121.

60040 
Page 2 of 3 

can exist two “working” minority districts in Louisiana and that Plaintiffs Amended
Complaint which alleges that “two majority-minority” congressional districts can be
drawn fails to state a claim. The Court does not read Thomas to require such pleading.
Furthermore, as ably noted in the opposition, Thomas was not being evaluated on its
pleadings in a 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss but was on review after a full trial on the
merits. Finally, the Defendant’s argument is premised almost entirely on Judge Willet’s
dissent, that while masterfully written, is of no precedential value particularly in light of
the current procedural posture of Thomas.
II.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration11

is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on April 22, 2020.

S

CHIEF JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

11

Rec. Doc. 101.

60040 
Page 3 of 3