# Alrshdan v. Board of Supervisors for the Southern University Agricultural and Mechanical College System

> District Court, M.D. Louisiana · May 19, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10191866

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** May 19, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10191866

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

NAIF ALRSHDAN, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF NO. 19-00549-BAJ-SDJ
SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY AND
AGRICULTURAL AND
MECHANICAL COLLEGE

RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss Claim For Injunctive
Relief As Moot (Doc. 28). Plaintiffs oppose Defendant’s Motion (Doc. 29), and
Defendant has submitted a reply in further support of its position (Doc. 30). For
reasons explained, Defendant’s Motion will be denied for failure to comply with this
Court’s Local Rules.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant, a federally funded public university, fails to
provide required accommodations to Deaf students, in violation of Title II of the
Americans With Disability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (“ADA”), and Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“RA”), 29 U.S.C. § 794. (Doc. 25 at ¶ 5). Relevant here,
Plaintiffs seek an injunction requiring Defendant to comply with its obligations under
the ADA and RA. (Id. at pp. 18-10 (Prayer for Relief)).
Now, Defendant seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief,
contending that its post-litigation actions have eliminated the need for an injunction.
(See Doc. 28). In short, Defendant argues that even if its prior policies violated
Plaintiffs’ rights, those policies have been changed, and Plaintiffs currently “face no
barriers due to their hearing impairment.” (Doc. 28-2 at 6). Thus, injunctive relief is
no longer required. (See id. at 6-10). In support, Defendant attaches declarations of
its newly-appointed Director of ADA & Title IX Compliance, and its interim

coordinator of the Office of Disability Services, each indicating that Defendant has
taken certain steps to address Plaintiffs’ concerns. (See Docs. 28-2, 30-1).
Plaintiffs oppose Defendant’s Motion, and assert that they continue to
experience “episodes of discrimination, retaliation, and a systemic failure to
accommodate under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.” (Doc. 29 at 1).
Further, Plaintiffs submit competing evidence—consisting of email correspondence—
indicating that Defendant’s new policy changes have not fully resolved the violations

alleged in the Amended Complaint. (See Docs. 29-1, 29-2, 29-3, 29-4).
Defendant’s Motion violates this Court’s Local Rules in two respects. First,
although styled a motion to dismiss, Defendant’s Motion is plainly a motion for
summary judgment, requiring the Court to weigh competing evidence under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The problem is that Defendant has already submitted
(and lost) a summary judgment motion. (See Docs. 23, 35). This Court’s Local Rules

generally prohibit a party from filing more than one summary judgment motion,
expressly allowing successive motions “only after seeking leave of Court and
demonstrating good cause.” LR 56(h). Defendant did not seek leave prior to filing its
Motion, and fails to show good cause justifying its successive request. This alone is
sufficient basis to deny Defendant’s Motion. See CMFG Life Ins. Co. v. Lee, No. 20-cv-
00157, 2021 WL 1395768, at *1 (M.D. La. Apr. 13, 2021) (Jackson, J.) (“[T]his Court
has repeatedly warned that its Local Rules carry the force of law, that parties
appearing before the Court are charged with knowledge of its Local Rules, and that
a party that fails to comply with the Local Rules does so at his own peril.” (quotation

marks and citations omitted)).
Moreover, even if the Court overlooked Defendant’s failure to obtain leave to
file a successive summary judgment motion, its Motion here is deficient, as it does
not include the statement of undisputed material facts required by Local Rule 56(f).
Again, Defendant’s failure to comply with the Local Rules is fatal to its request. See
id. (denying motion for summary judgment based on movant’s failure to submit a
properly cited statement of undisputed material facts).

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss Claim For Injunctive
Relief As Moot (Doc. 28) is DENIED.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 19th day of May, 2021

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10191866. Public record. Not legal advice.