Duncan v. Tangipahoa Parish Council et al, No. 2:2008cv03840 - Document 127 (E.D. La. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER and REASONS - The Court has discovered that, because of a typographical error, two defendants' names were inadvertently omitted from the penultimate paragraph of the Court's July 9, 2010 Order and Reasons 122 , page 8. Accordingly, that paragraph is amended as stated within document. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 7/16/2010.(cab) Modified on 7/19/2010 to edit document type (cab).

Download PDF
Duncan v. Tangipahoa Parish Council et al Doc. 127 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA JOHNNY DUNCAN CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 08-3840 TANGIPAHOA PARISH COUNCIL, ET AL. SECTION "N" (5) ORDER AND REASONS The Court has discovered that, because of a typographical error, two defendants' names were inadvertently omitted from the penultimate paragraph of the Court's July 9, 2010 Order and Reasons. See Rec. Doc. 122, page 8. Accordingly, that paragraph is amended to state: For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment filed by all remaining defendants other than LLBI (Rec. Doc. 105) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, all of the claims that Plaintiff has asserted against Tangipahoa Recreational District No. 3 ("TPRD"), Rodney Mobley and Eve Wilson (individually and in their official capacities as members of the Board of Directors of TPRD), Gordon Burgess (individually and in his official capacity as Tangipahoa Parish President), Tom Tolar, Tennis Rick, Michael Petitto, Carlo Bruno, Howard “Buddy” Ridgel, Ronnie Bankston, Lionel Wells, Carlos Notariano, Debbie Edwards and Bobby Cortez (individually and in their official capacities as TPC members) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Dockets.Justia.com In all other respects, the July 9, 2010 Order and Reasons (Rec. Doc. 122) remains the same. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 16th day of July 2010. ________________________________ KURT D. ENGELHARDT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.