Bailey v. Board of Commissioners of the Louisiana Stadium and Exposition District, et al
| Shelby Bailey |
| Board of Commissioners of the Louisiana Stadium and Exposition District, Kyle France and SMG |
| 2:2018cv05888 |
| June 14, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana |
| New Orleans Office |
| Assumption |
| Nannette Jolivette Brown |
| Joseph C. Wilkinson |
| Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 12181 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
181
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that there be judgment in favor of Defendants SMG and Kyle France, in his official capacity, and against Plaintiff, Shelby Bailey, dismissing Plaintiff's claims with prejudice, as set forth in document. Signed by Chief Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown on 9/4/2020.(jls)
|
|
Filing
145
ORDER AND REASONS DENYING Shelby Bailey's 95 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, as set forth in document. Signed by Chief Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown on 2/21/2020. (jls)
|
|
Filing
140
ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' 91 Motion for Summary Judgment on all of Plaintiff's Remaining Claims is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED to the extent that De fendants seek dismissal of Plaintiff's claim that the entire facility must comply with the alteration standard by providing accessible seating stadium-wide. The claim that the entire facility must comply with the alterations standard by providing accessible seating stadium wide is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The motion is DENIED in all other respects. Signed by Chief Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown on 2/19/2020. (jls)
|
|
Filing
86
ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that SMG's 31 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or alternatively for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as set forth herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the motion is GRANTED to the extent that SMG seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's claim regarding potential future renovations to the Superdome. The claim regarding potential future renovations to the Superdome is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The motion is DENIED in all other respects. Signed by Chief Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown on 12/12/2019. (jls)
|
|
Filing
82
ORDER AND REASONS - IT IS ORDERED that 74 Motion to Quash/ Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendants' motion is denied in part in that plaintiff may depose McGuire as to his personal observations, interacti ons and communications with Bailey and his family as the Saints' ADA coordinator. IT IS ORDERED that a Protective Order is entered to provide that the scope of Kevin McGuire's deposition is hereby LIMITED, as set forth herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than NOVEMBER 6, 2019, counsel must confer in person or by telephone and in good faith and consultation with the witness to arrive upon a mutually convenient date, time and location within a reasonable distance from McGuire 9;s residence in Boston, Massachusetts, when he will be deposed either in person, by telephone or other remote means. The deposition must be scheduled as soon as practicable, and no later than NOVEMBER 1, 2019, counsel must provide me with a letter, which I will file in the record, memorializing the arrangements they have made. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr on 10/23/2019. (sa)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Louisiana Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
