Enochs v. City of New Orleans

Full title: JOHN C. ENOCHS v. THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

Date published: Apr 15, 2008

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: 07-9249 SECTION: "T" (5) (E.D. La. Apr. 15, 2008)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: 07-9249 SECTION: "T" (5).

April 15, 2008

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ALMA CHASEZ, Magistrate Judge

Presently before the Court is the motion to intervene of movants, Shaun B. Rafferty and James F. Willeford, and plaintiff's motion to strike said motion to intervene. (Rec. docs. 9, 13, 16, 17).

A hearing on plaintiff's motion to strike was held on April 9, 2008 with counsel for the parties and the proposed intervenors in attendance. (Rec. doc. 19). During that hearing, the parties and the movants reached an agreement whereby the consent judgment entered herein on January 22, 2008 would be vacated and the two motions pending before the Court, as well as this lawsuit in its entirety, would be dismissed without prejudice to the parties' and the movants' rights to litigate their zoning-related issues in a matter now pending in the Orleans Parish CDC, No. 08-2189 J-13.¹ As this case is not before the undersigned with the consent of the parties/movants under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the Court hereby renders this Report and Recommendation so that the District Judge can go through the formality of vacating the judgment and dismissing the pending motions and this lawsuit without prejudice.

1 The agreement was dictated into the record and was taken down by Vic DiGiorgio, Court Reporter.

RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the consent judgment entered herein on January 22, 2008 be vacated.

It is further recommended that this lawsuit and the two motions pending before the Court be dismissed without prejudice to the parties' and the movants' rights to pursue this matter in state court.

A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation contained in a magistrate judge's report and recommendation within 10 days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, provided that the party has been served with notice that such consequences will result from a failure to object. Douglass v. United Services Auto. Assoc., 79 F.3d 1415 (5^th Cir. 1996) (en banc).