Race Discrimination - Bell et al. v. Daiquiris and Cream, No. 8, E.D. La. 2008.

Joanne Rinardo and Tre' Roux represented an insurance company whose insured was a daiquiris shop being sued for $4 million. Thirteen plaintiffs filed a constitutional claim that they had been discriminated against in violation of federal and state public accommodations laws, and also alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress. Specifically, the plaintiffs argued that they had been ejected from the shop because of their race and not, as the daiquiri shop claimed, because of their failure to comply with posted policy. Rinardo and Roux filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing the claim was filed prematurely, as it had not yet gone to the appropriate state agency. At a settlement conference on June 3, 2008, with both a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment pending, the plaintiffs significantly reduced their demand, but the daiquiri shop refused to counter the offer. The court accepted DK&S’ novel argument of prematurity, and Judge Duval granted the Motion for Summary Judgment on those grounds.
Bell et al. v. Daiquiris and Cream, No. 8, E.D. La. 2008.