Archive
- November 2023
- July 2022
- October 2021
- August 2021
- March 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- August 2020
- June 2020
- November 2019
- August 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- December 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- December 2017
- September 2017
- June 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- November 2016
- August 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- May 2014
- March 2014
- December 2013
- October 2013
- August 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
RE-URGED MOTIONS CARRY THE DAY
Kudos to Bill Aaron and DeWayne Williams, Shareholders of Aaron & Gianna, PLC, for back to back defense victories based on re-urged motions initially rejected by the trial courts.
In the first case, a state court proceeding filed in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Aaron and Williams successfully defeated claims of abuse of rights and abuse of process brought by a real estate developer against a property owner represented by Aaron & Gianna through the use of a re-urged Special Motion to Strike pursuant to Article 971 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure. A Special Motion to Strike (commonly referred to as an Anti-Slapp Motion) is a powerful procedural vehicle designed to thwart efforts by a plaintiff who seeks to sue a defendant because of the defendant’s exercise of constitutionally protected rights such as free speech and the right to petition government. Accompanying the grant of the re-urged Special Motion to Strike was a mandatory award of attorney fees in favor of the property owner.
In the second case, a federal court proceeding filed in the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Aaron and Williams successfully obtained an eve of trial dismissal of the suit for damages and declaratory and injunctive relief against the defendant, a former General Partner of a multi-million dollar affordable housing project based on a re-urged Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In reconsidering the Motion to Dismiss the trial court aptly noted that the bulk of the causes of action brought by the plaintiff, a special limited partner, were claims of the limited partnership, an entity which shared Louisiana citizenship with the defendant. The limited partnership was an indispensable party which if brought into the suit would destroy diversity of citizenship, the alleged basis of the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
