Sahota v. Cobb et al
Filing 29
JUDGMENT: For the reasons set forth in this Courts Ruling 28 , IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 18] is GRANTED. Defendants shall not be permitted to rely on their second defense of l ack of subject matter jurisdiction based on no diversity of citizenship; their third defense of the lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000; their eleventh defense of the statutory limitati ons of liability, costs, and interest contained in LA. REV. STAT. 13:5106 and LA. REV. STAT. 13:5112; their thirteenth defense of immunity under LA. REV. STAT. 9:2798.1; and their fourteenth defense that Plaintiffs claims are time barred. Addition ally, Defendants will not be permitted to rely on their seventh defense of contributory negligence and/or assumption of risk as to Plaintiffs claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 11/6/15. (crt,DickersonSld, D) Modified on 11/6/2015 to correct clerical error date of signature (DickersonSld, D).
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.
