Opinion
NO. 11-1521
09-15-2011
JAMES LITOMISKY v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA
CIVIL ACTION
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
, JR.
ORDER ON MOTION
APPEARANCES: None (on the briefs) MOTION: Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) Partial Motion to Dismiss, Record Doc. No. 8 ORDERED: XXX : GRANTED. For the same reasons discussed in greater detail in the decisions cited herein, the claim asserted by plaintiff under the Louisiana Human Rights Act is dismissed. See Smith v. Parish of Washington, 318 F. Supp. 2d 366, 372-73 (E.D. La. Mar. 26, 2004); Trahan v. Lowe's, Inc., No. 01-3243, 2002 WL 1560272, at *8-9 (E.D. La. July 12, 2002) (Wilkinson, M.J.); Sawyer v. JRL Enterprises, Inc., No. 05-1685, 2005 WL 3543738, at *3-4 (e.D. La. Oct. 5, 2005) (Vance, J.); Smith v. Diamond Offshore Mgmt., No. 03-2024, 2003 WL 23095586, at *5 (E.D. La. Dec. 23, 2003) (Engelhardt, J.); Anderson v. Guste Homes Resident Mgmt. Corp., No. 02-1626, 2004 WL 224567, at *2 (E.D. La. Feb. 4, 2004) (McNamara, J.); Bertaut v. Folger Coffee Co., No. 06-2437, 2007 WL 430645, at *2, n.1 (e.D. La. Feb. 5, 2007) (Zainey, J.); White v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 09-991, 2010 WL 4318892, at *2 (M.D. La. Oct. 22, 2010) (Jackson, J.). I find the arguments made by plaintiff in his opposition memorandum based upon United States Supreme Court decisions addressing federal statutes, not the Louisiana Human Rights Act, inapposite and unpersuasive, particularly in light of the history of the Louisiana legislature's treatment of its own state statutory scheme. The other causes of action and claims asserted by plaintiff provide his available remedies and remain in the case.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 15th day of September, 2011.
JOSEPH C. WILKINSON, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE