Inclusive Louisiana et al v. St. James Parish et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
INCLUSIVE LOUISIANA ET AL. 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO: 23-987
ST. JAMES PARISH ET AL. 	SECTION: “J”(1)
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion to Reset the Parties’ Previously Scheduled Rule
16(b) Scheduling Conference or Issue Scheduling Order (Rec. Doc. 106), filed by
Plaintiffs, Inclusive Louisiana, Mount Triumph Baptist Church, and RISE St. James
(hereinafter collectively “Plaintiffs”). Defendants, St. James Parish on behalf of itself
and its branches and divisions, the St. James Parish Council and St. James Parish
Planning Commission (“St. James Parish”), opposed the motion (Rec. Doc. 107), and
Plaintiffs replied (Rec. Doc. 109). Having considered the motion and memoranda, the
record, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the motion should be GRANTED.
As Plaintiffs point out, this litigation has been ongoing for nearly three years.
Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint against Defendants in March of 2023. Three
months later, in June of 2023, Defendants filed a Rule 12 Motion to Strike Allegations
and Dismiss Claims (Rec. Doc. 20). The Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss
Claims V and VII for lack of standing and also dismissed Claims I, II, III, IV, and VI
based on prescription. Plaintiffs then appealed the Court’s ruling, and the Fifth
Circuit reversed and remanded. In July 2025, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion
to Stay Proceedings (Rec. Doc. 77) and later extended the stay while Defendants
Case 2:23-cv-00987-CJB-JVM Document 112 Filed 12/04/25 Page 1 of 3

sought Supreme Court review through a writ of certiorari, which the Supreme Court
denied.
The stay was lifted upon Defendants’ motion on October 24, 2025, and
Plaintiffs 	subsequently 	supplemented 	their 	Complaint. 	In 	the 	instant 	motion,
Plaintiffs simply request that the previously scheduled Rule 	16(b) Scheduling
Conference be reset or that the Court issue a scheduling order. Defendants oppose on
the basis that their resubmitted Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Claims (Rec. Doc.
108) is pending before the court and is currently set for submission on December 10,
2025. The Court, however, disagrees that this pending motion constitutes good cause
to stay discovery.
Plaintiffs properly cite Fifth Circuit precedent when they say that a “stay of
discovery pending the resolution of dispositive motions is ‘the exception rather than
the rule.’” (Rec. Doc. 109, at 2 (quoting Glazer’s Wholesale Drug Co., Inc. v. Klein
Foods, Inc., No. 3-08-CV-0774-L, 2008 WL 2930482, at *1 (N.D. Tex. July 23, 2008);
Notariano v. Tangipahoa Par. Sch. Bd., No. 16-17832, 2018 WL 3844882, at *2 (E.D.
La. Aug. 13, 2018)).
The Court sees no plausible reason to delay this matter any further, and
setting a Rule 16(b) Scheduling Conference is merely the first step to move the
litigation forward.
Case 2:23-cv-00987-CJB-JVM Document 112 Filed 12/04/25 Page 2 of 3

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reset the Parties’
Previously Scheduled Rule 16(b) Scheduling Conference or Issue Scheduling Order
(Rec. Doc. 106) is GRANTED. Case Manager Cheyenne Green shall contact the
parties to set a new scheduling conference.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 4th day of December, 2025.
____________________________________
CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:23-cv-00987-CJB-JVM Document 112 Filed 12/04/25 Page 3 of 3