Opinion
CIVIL 3:23-00697
03-18-2024
LEGACY RECOVERY SERVICES, LLC ET AL v. CITY OF MONROE, ET AL
KAYLA D. MCCLUSKY, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JUDGMENT
DAVID C. JOSEPH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
For the reasons contained in the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge [Doc. 33], and after consideration of the OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION filed [Docs. 34, 35], and concurring with the Magistrate Judge's findings under the applicable law;
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendants' MOTIONS TO DISMISS [Docs. 16-18], are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all claims against Defendant City Council of Monroe are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants Ellis and Riley under the FHA, ADA, RA, ACA, and § 1983 pursuant to the FHA, ADA, RA, ACA, Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, and the Louisiana State Constitution, as well as their claims for breach of contract and tortious malfeasance, discrimination in real estate transactions, and violation of the Louisiana Open Meetings Law be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants Dawson, Harvey, Marshall, and Woods under the FHA, ADA, RA, ACA, and § 1983, pursuant to the FHA, ADA, RA, ACA, Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, and the Louisiana State Constitution, as well as their claims for breach of contract and tortious malfeasance, discrimination in real estate transactions, and violation of the Louisiana Open Meetings Law to the extent that claim seeks compensatory and punitive damages be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant City of Monroe under the FHA, ADA and RA failure-to-accommodate provisions, ACA, § 1983 pursuant to the FHA, ADA and RA failure-to-accommodate provisions, ACA, Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, and Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, as well as their claims for breach of contract and discrimination in real estate transactions be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in all other respects, the Motions are DENIED.