Several recent rulings by Judge Sarah Evans Barker have been posted on the Southern District of Indiana website.
An Indiana Law Blog posting of August 30, 2004, titled "Federal court upholds Indianapolis' ordinance re adult businesses," reported on Judge Barker's 8/27/04 decision in Annex Books v. Indianapolis. You may now access the 30-page ruling here. It concludes:
In summary, for the reasons stated above, we DENY Plaintiffs’ [Annex Books'] Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANT Defendant’s [City's] Motion for Summary Judgment on the first and second grounds (judicial review, licensure and premises requirements) and DENY the motion on the third ground relating to the unconstitutionality of warrantless inspections.Also posted is this 9/13/04 entry of Judge Barker in the same case, which reads in full:
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay the Enforcement of the Judgment entered by this court on August 27, 2004 regarding the constitutionality of Chapter 807 of the Indianapolis Revised Code regulating, inter alia, the licensing and operation of adult businesses. For the reasons that follow, we GRANT a limited stay to enforce the judgment in effect to and including October 1, 2004.Also posted is Smith v. Potter (8/27/04), in which Plaintiff alleges gender-based harrassment and discriminatory termination against her employer, the US Postal Service, and Judge Barker grants Defendant's motion for summary judgment and directs entry of final judgment in Defendant's favor.Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b), whether to stay the execution of any proceedings to enforce a judgment pending the disposition of a motion to alter or amend a judgment made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 is left to the sound discretion of the Court. Plaintiffs filed such a Rule 59 motion on September 8, 2004, but we received the final briefing on the issues only today, September 13, 2004, the very day that the ten-day stay agreed to by the City on August 30, 2004 expires.
We recognize a stay to enforce the judgment regarding Chapter 807 of the Revised Code is entirely in the Plaintiffs’ interest. We do not condone their approach in filing the motion and final briefs in so dilatory a fashion or in their submitting final briefings which appear to expand substantially the scope of the issues we addressed in the August 27, 2004 order. Nevertheless, we feel impelled to grant a limited stay of the judgment entered by this Court on August 27, 2004 to allow the Court to fully address the issues raised therein, which we expect to be able to accomplish by no later than October 1, 2004.
Another ruling, dated 8/27/04, is in Goodman v. U.S., which begins:
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant United States’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Mark Goodman, Karen Goodman, and L.G.’s (“the Goodmans”) claims alleging that the Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”) negligently and in violation of statutes and regulations approved an Indiana Department of Transportation (“INDOT”) project that installed warning signs at railroad grade crossings under 23 C.F.R. §§ 646.214(b)(3) and (4). The Goodmans filed suit against the United States for damages in tort related to an accident allegedly caused by inadequate warning signs at a railroad grade crossing which had been approved by FHWA and installed by INDOT. The United States, however, contends that it is not a proper defendant to this lawsuit as it has not waived sovereign immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). For the reasons explained below, we agree and therefore GRANT Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.Posted by Marcia Oddi at September 15, 2004 01:20 PM