Darrel James Papillion

“IT IS ORDERED Progressive's Motion for Summary Judgment (Record Document 41) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' claims against Progressive are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Autoliv's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' claims against Autoliv are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

“IT IS ORDERED that Allstate's Motion for Summary Judgment (R. Doc. 14) is GRANTED, and this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

“IT IS ORDERED Defendant's Motion in Limine (Record Document 232) is DENIED.”

“IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order and Reasons are OVERRULED, and the motion for review of the magistrate judge's order (R. Doc. 120) is DENIED.”

“For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (R. Doc. 16) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

“IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Chubb European Group SE are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.”

“IT IS ORDERED that State Farm’s motion to dismiss (R. Doc. 12) is GRANTED, and Thomas’s claims against it are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

“IT IS ORDERED that OMV and Porter’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and Hodge’s claims against them are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

“Before the Court are a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant, Michael Kernan and a Motion for Trial by Jury filed by Plaintiff, Anitra Gilmore. For the reasons that follow, IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”

“IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint (R. Doc. 47) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. All claims brought by the Plaintiff Parishes (except St. Tammany Parish, Livingston Parish, and Washington Parish), Plaintiff Municipalities, Plaintiff Levee Districts, Plaintiff Drainage Districts, and Plaintiff Association are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs’ NEPA claim (Count IX) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”

“The Plaintiff States and Plaintiff Policyholders have failed to establish they are entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. Accordingly, their motion for preliminary injunction must be denied. ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (R. Doc. 14) is DENIED.”

“IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claim under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (R. Doc. 30) is GRANTED and that Plaintiffs’ IDEA claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (R. Doc. 30) is GRANTED and that Plaintiffs’ ADA claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”

“For those reasons, O.E. has failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of his ADA claim. ... Therefore, he is not entitled to preliminary relief. ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction (R. Doc. 16) is DENIED.”

“In light of the foregoing, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to renew his partial summary judgment (R. Doc. 32) is DENIED AS MOOT.”

“For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Gomez’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. To the extent Gomez seeks summary judgment against Avondale, Gomez’s motion is GRANTED. To the extent Gomez seeks summary judgment against Hopeman Brothers, Gomez’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, to the right to be reurged when the automatic bankruptcy stay is lifted.”