Obienu v. Archdiocese of New Orleans, 2:25-cv-01028

Background

Plaintiff Kesiena Dennis Obienu, a U.S. citizen of Nigerian origin and former seminarian/ordained priest in the Archdiocese of New Orleans (ANO), alleges repeated discriminatory treatment and retaliatory acts by ANO clergy from 2019 through 2024 (car incident, insurance/benefits issues, adverse assignments, stipend disparities, alleged undisclosed termination, investigation for impersonating a chaplain).
Obienu filed suit May 22, 2025, asserting federal and Louisiana employment-discrimination claims and Louisiana state-law claims for defamation (libel/slander), negligence, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy; he seeks compensatory and punitive damages and fees.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing the Louisiana delictual claims are time-barred by the one-year prescriptive period (La. Civ. Code art. 3492 as applicable to pre-July 1, 2024 torts) and that the conspiracy claim fails as a standalone cause of action and lacks pleaded particulars.
Obienu argued the alleged misconduct continued through at least April 2024 (within one year of filing) and invoked the continuing-tort theory and tolling; he also requested leave to amend if pleading deficiencies existed.
The court found no alleged tortious acts after April 2024, rejected the continuing-tort/tolling arguments, held the one-year delictual prescription barred the state-law claims, concluded the conspiracy claim falls with the underlying torts and lacked pleaded agreement, and denied leave to amend as futile.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Obienu's Louisiana defamation, negligence, and emotional-distress claims are prescribed	The misconduct was ongoing through April 2024 (within one year of May 22, 2025 filing) and prescription should be tolled by a continuing pattern	The alleged torts occurred no later than April 2024 and the one-year delictual prescriptive period has run; no facts show a continuing tort or tolling	Claims are prescribed; dismissed with prejudice
Whether the civil conspiracy claim is viable	Obienu alleges coordinated tortious acts by defendants and contends pleading is sufficient at this stage	Conspiracy is not an independent tort in Louisiana and, in any event, Plaintiff failed to plead an agreement or willful conduct; underlying torts are prescribed	Conspiracy claim dismissed with prejudice as derivative and inadequately pleaded
Whether to grant leave to amend	Plaintiff requested leave to amend if deficiencies exist	Defendants opposed; argued amendment would be futile without factual basis	Court denied leave to amend as Plaintiff failed to identify additional facts and amendment would be futile

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard requires more than conclusory allegations)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957) (notice-pleading principles referenced historically)
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (standards for leave to amend pleadings)
Copeland v. Wasserstein, Perella & Co., 278 F.3d 472 (5th Cir. 2002) (recognizing negligence as a delictual action subject to Louisiana prescription)
King v. Phelps Dunbar, L.L.P., 743 So. 2d 181 (La. 1999) (intentional infliction of emotional distress subject to delictual prescription)
Clark v. Wilcox, 928 So. 2d 104 (La. App. 2005) (defamation governed by one-year delictual prescriptive period)
Crutcher-Tufts Res., Inc. v. Tufts, 38 So. 3d 987 (La. App. 2010) (elements required to prove civil conspiracy under Louisiana law)
Bottinelli Real Est., L.L.C. v. Johns Manville, Inc., 288 So. 3d 179 (La. App. 2019) (discussion of continuing-tort doctrine under Louisiana law)
Edionwe v. Bailey, 860 F.3d 287 (5th Cir. 2017) (motion-to-amend futility analysis when plaintiff fails to detail proposed factual additions)