Eldon E. Fallon

The case concerned criminal forfeiture following Mark St. Pierre's conviction on 53 counts of bribery, honest services wire fraud, and money laundering arising from a scheme to bribe New Orleans city officials in exchange for IT subcontracts and related payments. The court issued a preliminary order of forfeiture imposing a personal money judgment against St. Pierre for the traceable proceeds of the crimes, including amounts billed under the GSA contract through Imagine Software and sales of crime cameras through Veracent. The core reasoning was that statutes such as 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and § 982, applied via 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), require forfeiture of property or proceeds with a proven nexus to the offenses, which the government established by a preponderance of the evidence from the trial record, and that St. Pierre is personally liable for those amounts as the direct beneficiary.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a products liability claim by Macie Wagoner on behalf of her deceased husband, alleging that his fatal multiple myeloma resulted from chronic workplace exposure to benzene in Liquid Wrench (made by Radiator Specialty) and Varsol (made by ExxonMobil) from the 1970s to 2008. The opinion addresses a dozen pending motions, primarily Daubert challenges to exclude expert witnesses on general causation and related summary judgment requests under Alabama law, including the Alabama Extended Manufacturers’ Liability Doctrine. The court focuses on whether the experts’ opinions rely on reliable methodology and studies linking benzene to multiple myeloma, rather than on the ultimate conclusions, while also considering preemption issues from prior rulings on federal labeling requirements and defenses like assumption of risk. Core reasoning emphasizes that the admissibility inquiry targets principles and methodology under Daubert standards, and that benzene-focused studies are appropriate for the general causation question presented.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a breach of contract claim by Dr. W. Ryckman Caplan, an obstetrician/gynecologist, against Ochsner Clinic and related entities, along with claims for detrimental reliance and age discrimination. Caplan alleged that Ochsner orally promised him five years of employment when recruiting him and his colleagues, but the written Professional Services Agreement provided only a one-year initial term with automatic renewals terminable without cause on 90 days' notice after the first year; Ochsner terminated him after one year and sought repayment of a loan. The court granted summary judgment to Ochsner on all of Caplan's claims and denied his motion for reconsideration. The core reasoning was that the fully integrated written contract unambiguously controlled, any reliance on contradictory oral assurances was unreasonable as a matter of Louisiana law, and the contract terms were followed.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This multidistrict products liability litigation arose from claims that Merck's prescription drug Vioxx increased the risk of heart attacks and strokes, leading to thousands of lawsuits consolidated in federal court and various state courts. After extensive discovery, bellwether trials, and state-court proceedings, the parties reached a global settlement of $4.85 billion. The court had previously valued the common benefit work performed by attorneys at 6.5% of the settlement fund, or $315,250,000, and this order addresses the allocation of those fees among the attorneys who contributed to the settlement. The court reviews the litigation history, the role of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee and other counsel in discovery and trials, and the procedures established for submitting time records and determining allocations under the settlement agreement and the court's inherent authority.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned environmental groups' challenge to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' supplemental environmental impact statement and plans for replacing a lock in New Orleans' Industrial Canal, including allegations that the project would involve discharges of contaminated dredged sediments in violation of the Clean Water Act's citizen-suit provision. The court addressed the Corps' motion to dismiss the CWA claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and ripeness. It granted the motion and dismissed those claims without prejudice. The core reasoning was that plaintiffs had not alleged a violation of an effluent standard or limitation to waive sovereign immunity under the CWA, the claims were more appropriately brought under the APA, and the dispute was unripe because the project lacked funding and thus no discharge was imminent.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

This case involves an insurance coverage dispute in which ASI Lloyds sought a declaratory judgment that its homeowners policy did not cover water damage to the insureds' unoccupied Louisiana property from a burst copper pipe, arguing the loss fell under a freeze exclusion because the insureds failed to maintain heat or shut off the water. The insureds counterclaimed for breach of contract and opposed summary judgment, contending there was insufficient evidence the pipe burst due to freezing and that the exclusion was unenforceable without specific notice. The court denied ASI's motion for summary judgment, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding causation based on conflicting expert reports and other evidence, precluding judgment as a matter of law under the summary judgment standard. The court separately found that the freeze exclusion could be enforced because the policy had been delivered and Louisiana law presumes insureds have read its terms.

propertyprocedure

This case is part of a multi-district litigation arising from claims that Chinese-manufactured drywall installed in homes caused property damage, foul odors, and personal injuries. Several comprehensive general liability insurers filed motions to dismiss three consolidated cases, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over them. The court denied the motions of Mid-Continent Casualty Company and FCCI but granted those of Owners Insurance Company and NGM Insurance Company. It applied Fifth Circuit precedent to assess general personal jurisdiction by examining the insurers' contacts with Louisiana, including the volume and nature of their business activities and claims handling in the state.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves a personal injury claim by seaman Holly Wade, who was injured off the coast of Florida in 2009 during a transfer operation between a vessel owned by defendant Bordelon Marine and a U.S. Navy inflatable boat; Wade sued both Bordelon under the Jones Act and the United States under the Suits in Admiralty Act or Public Vessels Act for negligence causing her injuries. The United States moved to dismiss or transfer the case, contending that the Public Vessels Act required venue in the District of Hawaii where the Navy boat was located when the suit was filed. The court determined that the Public Vessels Act governed the claims against the United States and that its venue provision applied, creating an overlap that also permitted venue in the Northern District of Florida. The court granted the motion in part and transferred the action to the Northern District of Florida under 28 U.S.C. § 1406, citing the accident's location, the plaintiff's residence, and convenience to the parties.

proceduretorts & liability

This multidistrict litigation case concerns claims by homeowners against their insurers for coverage of damages allegedly caused by Chinese-manufactured drywall emitting odors and corroding metal components in their homes. Various homeowners' insurers filed Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss and Rule 12(c) motions for judgment on the pleadings. The court granted all ten motions, holding that the policies' provisions on direct physical loss, corrosion exclusions, pollution/contamination exclusions, and faulty materials exclusions precluded coverage under the relevant state law interpretations of the policy language.

propertytorts & liability

This case involved a dispute over contractual indemnity obligations arising from a personal injury settlement on an offshore oil platform. After Glenn Duet settled his claims against Nabors Offshore Corp. and Falgout Offshore for injuries sustained in a slip-and-fall incident, Nabors filed a separate action seeking defense and indemnity from Triangle Oil & Gas, Inc. and others under contracts related to drilling operations. Triangle moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Louisiana Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act (LOAA) barred Nabors' claims because the underlying settlement occurred without a judicial finding that Nabors was free of fault. The court denied the motion, reasoning that the parties' settlement agreement expressly provided for a future court determination of fault allocation, so the LOAA did not automatically invalidate the indemnity provision at this stage and its applicability would depend on the outcome of the upcoming trial on liability.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerns a personal injury lawsuit brought by Mississippi resident Keith Taylor against Tesco Corporation (US) and later-added defendants including Tesco Corporation, Pride International, and Mexico Drilling Limited, stemming from an accident on an offshore oil platform in Mexican waters where Taylor slipped and injured his arm on a top drive machine. Tesco (US) moved to dismiss the action filed in the Eastern District of Louisiana under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, arguing that Mexico was a more convenient and adequate alternative forum. The court examined whether an available and adequate alternative forum existed in Mexico, the degree of deference owed to the U.S. plaintiff's forum choice, and the balance of private and public interest factors such as access to evidence, witnesses, and applicable foreign law, while noting that post-filing developments like added parties must be considered. The opinion applies Fifth Circuit precedent on forum non conveniens in the context of international commercial accidents without reaching a final ruling in the provided excerpt.

proceduretorts & liability

This multidistrict products liability litigation concerns claims against Merck over the prescription drug Vioxx, which was withdrawn from the market in 2004 after clinical data linked it to increased cardiovascular risks; thousands of individual and class-action suits were consolidated in federal court for pretrial proceedings. The court addresses a motion by Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel seeking an award of common benefit fees and expense reimbursement from the global settlement fund of approximately $4.85 billion. The court determines the fee amount by applying a percentage-of-recovery method (with the requested 7.5% yielding roughly $363.75 million) and cross-checks it against a lodestar calculation based on 562,943.55 total hours submitted (79.6% attorney time), producing an approximate multiplier of 1.46. The reasoning focuses on the extensive common-benefit work performed by plaintiffs’ steering committee and other counsel in document discovery, depositions, expert preparation, bellwether trials, and coordination with state-court proceedings.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves Louisiana property owners suing St. Bernard Parish and the Lake Borgne Basin Levee District for uncompensated removal of soil and materials from their land under a post-Hurricane Katrina emergency commandeering order to repair a levee, with the defendants filing a third-party claim against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under a cooperation agreement. The district court granted the plaintiffs' motions to sever, dismiss, and remand. It held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the state-law takings claim in the petition, which belongs in Louisiana state court, and over the third-party demand against the federal agency, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. Because the two claims could not proceed together in one forum, the court severed them, remanded the petition to the 34th Judicial District Court for St. Bernard Parish, and dismissed the third-party demand without prejudice rather than transferring it.

propertyprocedurefederal power

This case involves a dispute over insurance coverage for wind damage to a New Orleans home from Hurricane Katrina under an Allstate homeowner's policy that covers only wind, not flood. Plaintiffs sought additional payments beyond what Allstate had already paid, alleging more extensive wind and wind-driven rain damage, and raised claims including bad faith and emotional distress. The court denied Allstate's motion to exclude the plaintiffs' expert report and testimony, finding it met admissibility standards under Daubert. On summary judgment, the court denied the motion in part, ruling that genuine factual disputes existed regarding the extent of covered wind damage and potential statutory penalties, but granted it in part by dismissing the emotional distress claim due to lack of pleading and supporting evidence.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a dispute between the City of New Orleans and BellSouth over whether the company owed compensation to the City for using public rights-of-way to provide telecommunications services since 2007, based on a series of historical franchise ordinances, agreements, and state law dating to 1879. The parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment on the City's claims under the original and amended complaints, along with BellSouth's motion to exclude the City's expert witness on damages. The court granted in part and denied in part both sides' summary judgment motions, granted BellSouth's motion on the amended complaint, and denied the Daubert motion to exclude the expert. It reasoned that disputes over the expert's methodology and conclusions were matters of weight for trial rather than admissibility, especially in a bench trial, and that genuine issues of material fact remained on some but not all of the contract and compensation claims.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involves a dispute over insurance coverage for property damage and business interruption losses caused by Hurricane Katrina to Rainbow USA, Inc.'s commercial properties in Louisiana and Mississippi. Rainbow sought coverage under an excess insurance policy issued by Nutmeg Insurance Company, which follows the form of an underlying policy but includes an "ultimate net loss" provision whose meaning was contested. The court determined that this provision is ambiguous and that there is sufficient extrinsic evidence to present the question of its interpretation to a jury. Accordingly, the court denied both Rainbow's and Nutmeg's motions for summary judgment.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case is a multidistrict products liability action in which homeowners sued Chinese manufacturer Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd. alleging that defective drywall installed in their Virginia homes emitted corrosive gases that damaged electrical wiring, copper pipes, HVAC systems, and other components. The court determined after reviewing scientific testing, expert reports, and home inspections that the drywall created a uniquely corrosive environment requiring full removal and replacement of all drywall plus associated electrical, plumbing, HVAC, insulation, and fixture items, and that selective remediation was impractical. On that basis the court awarded seven plaintiff families a total of $2,609,129.99 in damages for property loss, personal property damage, and loss of use.

torts & liabilityproperty

This multidistrict litigation concerns claims by homeowners against manufacturers, distributors, and others for damages from defective Chinese drywall installed in homes after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which emitted gases causing corrosion and health issues. The court addressed motions by distributor and manufacturer defendants to dismiss or strike tort claims for economic damages under the economic loss rule in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana law. The court denied the motions, holding that the economic loss rule does not bar the plaintiffs' tort claims for economic losses. The reasoning centered on distinctions from prior cases like Casa Clara, noting that the drywall damaged other property and involved personal injuries, and that the rule's application varies by state but permits recovery here.

torts & liabilityproperty

This case centers on employment-related disputes between plaintiff Leonce J. Miller III and defendants Allpax Products, LLC, Pro Mach, Inc., Michael F. Blattner, and Steven B. Hudson over the conditional payment of performance bonuses under a stock purchase agreement and separate discretionary bonus arrangements, along with claims for violation of the Louisiana Wage Payment Statute, breach of contract, detrimental reliance, and third-party beneficiary status, as well as counterclaims by Allpax for misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of an employment agreement involving customer emails and patent materials. The court denied Miller's motion for partial summary judgment on his wage claims, granted in part and denied in part the defendants' summary judgment motions on issues including negligence, defamation, invasion of privacy, and certain contract claims, and denied Miller's motion to dismiss the counterclaim. Core reasoning focused on the existence of unresolved factual disputes concerning employer status, whether offered bonuses qualified as unconditional wages, the circumstances of Miller taking company materials, Allpax's lack of evidence of actual loss for damages, and standing to recover prior bonus payments, making most issues inappropriate for summary resolution.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This multidistrict products liability litigation involves claims against Merck regarding the prescription drug Vioxx, which was withdrawn from the market after studies linked it to increased cardiovascular risks, leading to a $4.85 billion global settlement program. The court had previously capped contingent attorney fees for counsel representing claimants at 32% plus reasonable costs. A group of attorneys known as the Vioxx Litigation Consortium moved for reconsideration of that capping order. After briefing, oral argument, and review of the court's inherent authority in MDL proceedings and the settlement terms, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part.

torts & liabilityprocedure