Tucker Lee Melançon

United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana district Senior status Appointed by Bill Clinton (Democratic) 14 signed orders read

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Newman v. Herbst
1:09-cv-04313 · 2010-02-25
Motions to dismiss (plaintiff) Granted

“ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss defendant's counterclaim [Rec. Doc. 288] is GRANTED.”

Newman v. Herbst
1:09-cv-04313 · 2010-02-25
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“ORDERED that defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Rec. Doc. 291], and his request for a hearing, are DENIED.”

Coleman v. Town of Brookhaven
2:08-cv-00379 · 2009-04-23
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“Brookhaven's Motion for Summary Judgment on plaintiff's claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is GRANTED with respect to discrimination (42 U.S.C. Sec 2000e-2(a)(1)), and DENIED with respect to retaliation (42 U.S.C. Sec 2000e-3(a))... Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. Sec Sec 1981, 1983 and 1985 is GRANTED... Motion for Summary Judgment on plaintiff's claim under contract law is DENIED.”

Summary judgment partial (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on her claims under 42 U.S.C. Sec 1983 is DENIED.”

Coleman v. Town of Brookhaven
2:08-cv-00379 · 2010-05-24
Motion for reconsideration (defendant) Moot / procedural

“defendants' Motion will be DENIED AS MOOT IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and plaintiff's Motion will be DENIED.”

Motion for reconsideration (plaintiff) Denied

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration [Rec. Doc. 50] is DENIED.”

Quinones v. Atlantic Hyundai
2:06-cv-01626 · 2009-02-25
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“ORDERED that defendant Atlantic Hyundai's Motion for Summary Judgment [Rec. Doc. 39] is GRANTED with respect to plaintiff's claims for defamation and his claim arising from an alleged unauthorized credit check, and DENIED with respect to plaintiff's claim based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

Martal Cosmetics, Ltd. v. International Beauty Exchange Inc.
1:01-cv-07595 · 2010-05-28
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“ORDERED that plaintiff Martal Cosmetics, Ltd.'s Second Motion for Summary Judgment [Rec. Doc. 417] is DENIED.”

Martal Cosmetics, Ltd. v. International Beauty Exchange Inc.
1:01-cv-07595 · 2011-03-11
Motion in limine (plaintiff) Denied

“ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion in Limine to allow Sarner to testify remotely [Rec. Doc. 474] is DENIED.”

Motions to compel (defendant) Moot / procedural

“defendants' August 9, 2010 motion to compel [Rec. Doc. 466], are DENIED as moot.”

Martal Cosmetics, Ltd. v. International Beauty Exchange Inc.
1:01-cv-07595 · 2011-08-23

Post-bench-trial findings of fact and conclusions of law in a Lanham Act trademark-counterfeiting case, not a motion ruling. Judgment for the plaintiff, a permanent injunction, and attorney fees/costs, but no prejudgment interest since statutory damages already fully compensated the plaintiff.

Pensionsversicherungsanstalt v. Estate of Rose Eisinger
1:07-cv-05300 · 2011-08-23
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Defendant Rosenbaum's motion to dismiss [Rec. Doc. 218] is DENIED”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“defendant Greenblatt's motion to dismiss [Rec. Doc. 219] is DENIED.”

Beare v. Millington
1:07-cv-03391 · 2014-03-25
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“The Motion will be granted on all of plaintiff's claims: conversion, fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, quiet title, reformation, constructive trust, and punitive damages, and each of plaintiff's claims will be dismissed with prejudice.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Defendant's counterclaims based on plaintiff's alleged litigation misconduct, asserted for the first time in her Motion for Summary Judgment, will be denied.”

State of New York v. Adamowicz
2:02-cv-03476 · 2013-03-20
Motion in limine (plaintiff) Granted

“Based on the foregoing, plaintiff's Motion in Limine will be granted and the Court will strike the defendants' unnecessary costs defense.”

Indiaweekly.com, LLC v. Nehaflix.com, Inc.
3:07-cv-00194 · 2011-04-05
Motions to compel (plaintiff) Granted

“The Court having reviewed in camera the Yahoo database records, concludes that the records contain information relevant to the claims asserted by Indiaweekly in this matter. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Nehaflix produce the Yahoo database records to counsel for Indiaweekly within three days of the entry of this order.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The sampled senior-status civil docket is a mix of ERISA long-term-disability benefit disputes (administrative-record review), an insurance/unjust-enrichment coverage dispute, a state-court removal and remand fight, and a habeas corpus transfer to the court of appeals as a successive petition. Consistent with a senior judge's typically lighter, more curated caseload in a single division (Lafayette) rather than the full docket of an active judge.

Put Judge Melançon's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Melançon actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Melançon's own signed orders and cites them.