Hignell et al v. City of New Orleans, No. 2:2019cv13773 - Document 120 (E.D. La. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's 111 motion for declaratory judgment is STAYED to promote previously directed opportunities for amicable resolution on relief issues. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's 116 motion t o extend time to respond, or in the alternative, motion for expedited status conference and 117 motion for expedited consideration are DISMISSED as moot, without prejudice. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 10/18/2022. (Reference: 19-cv-13773; 22-cv-02991)(pp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hignell et al v. City of New Orleans Doc. 120 Case 2:19-cv-13773-ILRL-JVM Document 120 Filed 10/18/22 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MELISSA HIGNELL, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 19-13773 CITY OF NEW ORLEANS SECTION: “B”(1) ORDER AND REASONS Considering plaintiff’s motion for declaratory judgment (Rec. Doc. 111), defendant the City of New Orleans’ opposed motion to extend time to respond, or in the alternative, motion for expedited status conference (Rec. Doc. 116), and motion for expedited consideration (Rec. Doc. 117), IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for declaratory judgment (Rec. Doc. 111) is STAYED to promote previously directed opportunities for amicable resolution on relief issues. See Rec. Doc. 109. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion to extend time to respond, or in the alternative, motion for expedited status conference (Rec. Doc. 116) and motion for expedited consideration (Rec. Doc. 117) are DISMISSED as moot, without prejudice. Deadlines set forth in the Minute Entry at record document 109 shall remain intact. Shortly after a recent conference with all parties’ counsel, plaintiff’s counsel filed judgment (Rec. Doc. 111). the subject motion for declaratory As we stated during the conference, the Fifth Circuit clearly found that the city ordinance at issue 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:19-cv-13773-ILRL-JVM Document 120 Filed 10/18/22 Page 2 of 2 treated non-residents unfairly in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause. Hignell-Stark v. City of New Orleans, 46 F.4th 317, 325 (5th Cir. 2022). After input at the conference from all counsel, the undersigned directed parties to negotiate in good faith an amicable resolution on relief issues in accordance with the Circuit’s opinion noted above and this court’s prior opinion that was affirmed, in part, by the Circuit. The surprise filing of a formal motion to achieve the latter directive directive. is not an act of good faith compliance with that The Fifth Circuit has clarified: “Our conclusion that the residency requirement is discriminatory puts it on death’s doorstep.” Id. at 328. As noted in this Court’s previous Minute Entry (Rec. Doc. 109), the only remaining issues concern remedies for the Commerce Clause and First Amendment claims. The premature filing of superfluous pleadings has potential consequences that should be avoided to give amicable resolution any chance. We are not impressed by strategies that unduly interfere with and delay “the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of [this] action.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 1. New Orleans, Louisiana this 18th day of October 2022 ___________________________________ SENIOR 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.
