Sutton et al v. Davidson et al

Filing 59

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting in part and denying in part 24 Motion to Intervene. Rogers is directed to file by June 2, 2014 a Complaint in Intervention to assert his consortium claim; denying 28 Motion to Substitute Party without prejudice to be ing re-urged after the state court has issued decisions on the relevant issue; denying 30 Motion to Strike Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Intervene. The status conference set for June 18, 2014 is reset to July 16, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark L Hornsby on 5/14/2014. (crt,Dauterive, C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION

SARAH SUTTON, ET AL

CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-cv-0952

VERSUS

JUDGE FOOTE

BRODERICK DAVIDSON, ET AL

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Brett Rogers’ Motion to Intervene (Doc. 24) is granted in part and denied in part.
The biological father of an injured child is entitled to pursue a claim for loss of consortium.
Rogers has filed a paternity action in state court, as required by state law. See Udomeh v.
Joseph, 103 So. 3rd 343 (La. 2012). He represents that a test shows there is more than a 99%
chance he is the father, and documents filed by the mother in state court appear to admit that
she and Rogers are together the parents of a child. That showing is adequate to allow Rogers
to file a complaint in intervention and assert his consortium claim. The child’s mother argues
that Rogers did not have a meaningful relationship with the child, but such arguments will
go to the merits of any defense to the claim offered by the defendants. They do not impede
Rogers’ ability to assert a claim. Rogers is directed to file by June 2, 2014 a complaint in
intervention to assert his consortium claim.
Rogers also wishes to pursue claims on behalf of the injured child. He alleges that the
mother, Sarah Sutton, is unfit for her role as tutor and has a conflict of interest because the
defendants accuse her of fault in connection with the accident. Sutton has attempted to avoid

the conflict issue by way of a state court proceeding in which the child’s claim was assigned
to a special needs trust. Sutton has filed in this court a Motion to Substitute Party Plaintiff
(Doc. 28) in which she asks to substitute the trustee as the proper party to prosecute the
claims of the child. Rogers opposes that change and has filed in the state court a challenge
to the transfer of the claims to the trust. He insists that he is the proper party to represent the
interests of the child.
It appears that proceedings will be held in state court in the near future to address
those matters. Based on principles of comity and respect for the role of the state courts in
deciding domestic matters, the undersigned finds that this court should defer a decision on
the proper party to represent the child in this case until the state courts have an opportunity
to resolve the tutorship, filiation, trust, and related issues that will be central to that decision.
Accordingly, the Motion to Substitute Party Plaintiff (Doc. 28) is denied without
prejudice to being re-urged after the state court has issued decisions on the relevant issues.
Rogers has filed a Motion to Strike (Doc. 30) in which he complains that Sutton’s
memorandum in opposition to his motion to intervene is filled with scandalous allegations
that attack his moral character and accuse him of being a grifter, child molester, and domestic
abuser. The motion is denied, given the potential relevance of such matters to the tutorship
dispute, but counsel for Sutton is directed to avoid unsupported or sensationalized personal
attacks in the filings.

Page 2 of 3

The status conference set for June 18, 2014 is reset to July 16, 2014 at 2:00 p.m.
Out of town counsel may participate by telephone with prior notice to the court. The use of
cell phones is prohibited.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 14th day of May, 2014.

Page 3 of 3