Laney v. Louisiana

Full title: LEIGH LANEY v. STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Date published: Jun 1, 2016

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 15-00848-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La. Jun. 1, 2016)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 15-00848-BAJ-RLB

06-01-2016

LEIGH LANEY v. STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL.

BRIAN A. JACKSON, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

RULING AND ORDER

Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7) filed by Defendant State of Louisiana ("Defendant") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(1). Plaintiff Leigh Laney ("Plaintiff") has filed a memorandum in opposition (Doc. 12), to which Defendant has replied (Doc. 16). Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Filed on March 17, 2016, Defendant's motion "urges this Court to dismiss Plaintiff's ADA and FMLA claims" claims against the State of Louisiana. (See Doc. 7-1 at p. 1). Such claims were, at the time, pending before this Court. (Doc. 1). Since then, however. Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint,¹ in which she only asserts a Rehabilitation Act² claim against the State of Louisiana.³ (See Doc. 10 at ¶ 4). That complaint now governs this dispute. See Zaidi v. Ehrlich, 732 F.2d 1218, 1219-20 (5th Cir. 1984) (noting that a motion to dismiss does not extinguish a plaintiff's right to amend a complaint).

1 Plaintiff's amended complaint was filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), which permits a party to "amend its pleading once as a matter of course within . . . 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier."

2 The Court is nonetheless cognizant of its "independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists" in this case. Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010); see also Pace v. Bogalusa City Sch. Bd., 403 F.3d 272, 281 (5th Cir. 2005) (holding that § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, codified as 29 U.S.C. § 794, "validly conditioned Louisiana's receipt of . . . federal funds on its waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity").

3 Because Secretary Leblanc was not a party to this lawsuit when Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss, none of the claims that Plaintiff has subsequently asserted against Secretary Leblanc, see Doc. 10 at ¶ 5, are relevant to this Ruling and Order. --------

In short, Defendant moves to dismiss two claims that no longer exist. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7) is DENIED as moot.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 1^st day of June, 2016.

/s/ _________

BRIAN A. JACKSON, CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA