Johnson v. Ardoin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA JAMILA JOHNSON, et al. Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION 3:18-cv-00625-SDD-EWD v. KYLE ARDOIN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS LOUISIANA SECRETARY OF STATE Defendant. RULING Before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration1 filed by the Defendant, Kyle Ardoin, in his official capacity as the Secretary of State of Louisiana. The Motion is opposed by the Plaintiffs, Jamilla Johnson, et al.2 Defendant moves the Court to reconsider its Ruling denying the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.3 Movant urges reconsideration on the grounds that a subsequent decision by the Court of Appeal in Thomas v. Bryant,4 “directly impact[s] this Court’s denial of the Motion to Dismiss.”5 Movant argues that “the Thomas Court addressed the issues of laches and the requirements of a successful Section 2 claim”6 which present “extraordinary circumstances” thereby justifying reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). 1 Rec. Doc. 101. 2 Rec. Doc. 121. 3 Rec. Doc. 68. [4] 938 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2019). 5 Rec. Doc. 101-1. [6] Id. 60040 Page 1 of 3 I. LAW AND ANALYSIS In this District, “three major grounds” have been recognized as justifying reconsideration: “(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.”7 Even if Thomas v. Bryant8 could be characterized as an “intervening change in the law”, the Court of Appeal “on the Court’s own motion, [determined] to rehear this case en banc.”9 Plaintiffs argue that “[b]ecause Bryant has been vacated, Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is effectively based on no intervening event whatsoever. Thus, the Court should dismiss Defendant’s Motion as moot rather than reaching the merits.”10 While pending rehearing, the Thomas case is arguably not an intervening change in the law. Nonetheless, even reaching the merits the Court finds that the panel decision in Thomas does not change the law and does not therefore mandate reconsideration. Regarding the doctrine of laches, the Court finds that Thomas does not change the laches analysis. The laches inquiry, which asks whether Plaintiffs unreasonably delayed asserting a claim or right to the prejudice of the Defendant, was applied by this Court and it is still the legal standard. Accordingly, the Court denies reconsideration of its laches holding. As regards the substantive voting rights claim, the Defendant makes a convoluted argument that Thomas somehow requires that Plaintiffs plead that there 7 Wagster v. Gautreaux, 2014 WL 46638 , at *2 (M.D. La. 2014) (quoting J.M.C. v. La. Bd. of Elementary and Secondary Educ., 584 F.Supp.2d 894, 896 (M.D. La. 2008)). 8 See supra, note 4. 9 Thomas v. Bryant, 939 F.3d 629 (5th Cir. 2019). 10 Rec. Doc. 121. 60040 Page 2 of 3 can exist two “working” minority districts in Louisiana and that Plaintiffs Amended Complaint which alleges that “two majority-minority” congressional districts can be drawn fails to state a claim. The Court does not read Thomas to require such pleading. Furthermore, as ably noted in the opposition, Thomas was not being evaluated on its pleadings in a 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss but was on review after a full trial on the merits. Finally, the Defendant’s argument is premised almost entirely on Judge Willet’s dissent, that while masterfully written, is of no precedential value particularly in light of the current procedural posture of Thomas. II. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration11 is hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on April 22, 2020. S CHIEF JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 11 Rec. Doc. 101. 60040 Page 3 of 3