Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Shreveport Chapter #237 of United Daughters of Confederacy v. Caddo Parish Commission

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division

May 14, 2018

SHREVEPORT CHAPTER #237 OF UNITED DAUGHTERS OF THE CONFEDERACY
v.
CADDO PARISH COMMISSION, ET AL.

          MARK L. HORNSBY Judge.

          RULING

          ROBERT G. JAMES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Ruling denying a preliminary injunction, filed by Plaintiff Shreveport Chapter #237 of the United Daughters of the Confederacy (“UDC” or “Plaintiff”). [Doc. No. 44] By its motion, Plaintiff moves the Court to “reconsider[] its previous Ruling and incorporate the findings contained in plaintiff's Motion.”[1] Id. at 13 (emphasis in original). For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

         I. Background

         On October 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed this suit seeking, in part, a preliminary injunction enjoining the Caddo Parish Commission (“Commission” or “Defendant”) from enforcing Resolution 69 by removing the Confederate Monument currently located at the Caddo Parish Courthouse Square.[2] In support of its motion for injunction, Plaintiff argued because it is the owner of the land upon which the monument sits, enforcement of Resolution 69 would violate its rights under the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. [Doc. 10 at 4]. On December 11, 2017, the Court held a hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and then took the matter under advisement. [Doc. No. 31]. On January 26, 2018, the Court issued its Ruling and denied the motion. [Doc. No. 38]. As set forth in the Ruling, the Court found Plaintiff failed to meet its burden of showing there is a substantial likelihood it will prevail on the merits, because Plaintiff did not show a substantial likelihood of proving it owns the plot of land upon which the monument sits. Id. at 6, 14. Because Plaintiff's claims hinge upon its status as owner of the locus in quo, as a threshold matter Plaintiff had to first establish a substantial likelihood it is the owner of the land before showing its entitlement to injunctive relief. This Plaintiff failed to do.

         By the present motion, Plaintiff lodges the following “objections” to the Court's Ruling:

1. “Plaintiff objects to the Court's finding of facts which states, ‘Since the 1840's, Caddo Parish has used Block 23, City of Shreveport, for public purposes. . . .'” [Doc. No. 44 at 1 (citing Doc. No. 38 at 2)]
2. “Plaintiff objects to the Court's finding of facts which states, ‘. . .A courthouse, maintained by Caddo Parish, has sat on the same property since 1860.'” Id. at 4 (citing Doc. No. 38 at 2).
3. “Plaintiff objects to the Court's finding of facts which states, ‘The Court will make its own conclusions of law, but reports the findings of United Title as facts.'” Id. at 5 (citing Doc. No. 38 at 3).
4. “Based on the Court's abuse of its discretion plaintiff objects to the Court's finding of conclusions of law whereby the plaintiff ‘has no substantial likelihood of success showing that it obtained ownership interest in the plot based on the Caddo Parish Police Jury's gratuitous donation.'” Id. at 7 (citing Doc. No. 38 at 8).
5. “Based on the Court's abuse of discretion plaintiff objects to the Court's finding of conclusions of law whereby the plaintiff has no substantial likelihood of success showing that it obtained ownership interest in the plot based on the Caddo Parish Police Jury's onerous donation.” Id. at 9 (citing Doc. No. 38 at pp. 8-9).
6. “Based on the Court's abuse of its discretion plaintiff objects to the Court's finding of that [sic] plaintiff could not ‘affirmatively use the defense of laches against the' defendant because ‘in effect, [it] result[s] in a finding that UDC had obtained title or ownership to the plot where the Monument sits by acquisitive prescription.'” Id. at 11 (citing Doc. No. 38 at 14).
7. “Based on the Court's abuse of its discretion, plaintiff objects that the Court did not examine its Fourteenth Amendment claims because the Court's conclusion of law was based on an error of a material issue of facts that plaintiff did not own the property underneath the Monument.” Id. (citing Doc. No. 38 at 14).
8. “Based on the Court's abuse of its discretion plaintiff objects that the Court reached the legal conclusion that the Court need not reach the remaining factors [for a preliminary injunction] because it reasoning was based on an error of a material issue of fact that ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.