Akeem et al v. Dasmen Residential, LLC et al, No. 2:2019cv13650 - Document 319 (E.D. La. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS: granting 309 Motion for Summary Judgment, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Barry W Ashe on 12/22/2022. (Reference: All Cases)(am)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Akeem et al v. Dasmen Residential, LLC et al Doc. 319 Case 2:19-cv-13650-BWA-DMD Document 319 Filed 12/22/22 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA JOSHUA AKEEM, et al. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 19-13650 c/w 19-13673, 19-13705, 19-14634, 1914636, 19-14637, 20-187 DASMEN RESIDENTIAL, LLC, et al. SECTION M (3) ORDER & REASONS Before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by defendants KFK Development, L.L.C. and KFK Group, Inc. (the “KFK Defendants”).1 The motion was set for submission on December 29, 2022.2 Local Rule 7.5 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana requires that a memorandum in opposition to a motion be filed no later than eight days before the noticed submission date, making the deadline in this instance December 21, 2022. Plaintiffs, who are represented by counsel, did not file an opposition to the motion. 3 Accordingly, because the motion is unopposed, IT IS ORDERED that the KFK Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (R. Doc. 309) is GRANTED, and plaintiffs’ claims against them are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 22nd day of December, 2022. ________________________________ BARRY W. ASHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 R. Doc. 309. This consolidated action involves claims by former and current tenants against the former and current property owners and managers of five apartment complexes in New Orleans. Plaintiffs’ only remaining claim against the KFK Defendants is for breach of contract. See R. Docs. 230 at 3 n.15; 263 at 27; 309-10 at 3. 2 R. Doc. 309-11. 3 At a telephone status conference held on December 6, 2022, R. Doc. 312, plaintiffs’ counsel represented that they did not oppose, and in fact would be stipulating to, the dismissal of the KFK Defendants from the action. Presumably, given the pendency of the KFK Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs simply chose not to oppose dismissal of these defendants via motion practice, rather than filing a stipulation of dismissal. The result is the same. Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
