Background
Tina Marquardt challenged New Orleans’s short-term rental permitting regime, seeking a permanent injunction, declaratory judgment, and attorney fees. The district court partially granted her summary judgment, ruling that the City violated the Takings Clause during a brief period before her permits expired. However, the district court’s subsequent judgment was unclear on whether it provided specific, operative relief beyond attorney fees.
The court’s reasoning
The court explained that a final order under Section one thousand two hundred ninety-one of Title twenty-eight of the United States Code must specify the remedies the victorious plaintiffs will receive. While the district court addressed the only remedy Marquardt affirmatively pursued, it neither stated it was entering a declaratory judgment nor made clear that all other relief was denied. The court cited Hignell-Stark v. City of New Orleans to emphasize that finality requires specifying remedies.
a final order [under 28 U.S.C. § 1291] must also specify the remedies that the victorious plaintiffs will receive.
Hignell-Stark v. City of New Orleans, 46 F.4th 317, 329–330 (5th Cir. 2022)
What it means going forward
The district court must issue an amended judgment within fourteen days that expressly identifies the specific relief granted and denied in its November two thousand twenty-four ruling. The parties do not need to file a new notice of appeal or submit additional briefing.