NEW ORLEANS – U.S. District Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle dismissed a lawsuit on Aug. 31, filed by the patron of a New Orleans café who claimed that he had suffered emotional damage from being barred from his favorite cafe. The case was heard in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
As quoted in Judge Lemelle’s ruling, he said, “It is ordered that the defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted and Plaintiff’s first, second, third, fourth, and fifth causes of action against Miklos Mendler and Offside, LLC are dismissed, at Plaintiff’s cost.
The cause for the lawsuit arose when Charles Edward Lincoln III, who had considered the Avenue Café for almost five years to be his second home, appeared on television in front of the Jefferson Davis monument stating his opposition to the removal of confederate monuments in the city.
Judge Ivan Lemelle
When Lincoln appeared at the Avenue Café on May 2, 2017, the owner, Miklos Mindler, told him that he was no longer welcome at the café because of his stance on the removal of the monuments. After seeing him on television, employees at the café objected to his viewpoint and expressed their desire that Lincoln be barred from service in the café.
Lincoln said that he was in a state of shock and in fact, was afraid to look for another café to patronize. Then he filed suit against the café owner and the café alleging that they had violated federal civil rights laws as well as the Louisiana Constitution. In response, the café owners filed a motion to dismiss Lincoln’s claims.
Judge Lemelle granted defendants’ motion for dismissal, and as stated in his ruling, said that Plaintiff Lincoln had not indicated he had suffered any physical injury. In addition, he said, “Plaintiff has not adequately pled that the Mendlers’ conduct was outrageous. Nor does Plaintiff allege that the Mendler defendants owed him a ‘special direct duty. ‘ ”
The judge also said in his ruling that although Plaintiff was a long-time patron of the café, there was no indication that this commercial relationship created a special duty owed to Plaintiff. “Plaintiff neither alleges that he is especially susceptible to emotional distress, nor that, if he is, Mendler knew that when he asked Plaintiff not to return to the café,” said the judge.
In conclusion, Judge Lemelle said, “Therefore, plaintiff has failed to state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional stress.” After which, he dismissed the case.