Louis Guirola jr

Gulf Restoration Network brought a citizen suit under the Clean Water Act against Hancock County Development for conducting construction activities on its property without required permits, including stormwater discharges and dredging and filling wetlands. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on both standing and liability. It found that the wetlands were waters of the United States under the Rapanos tests because they bordered tributaries connected to navigable waters and had a significant nexus to those waters. The evidence showed Hancock's unpermitted discharges violated CWA Sections 402 and 404, and the plaintiff established standing through its members' use of nearby properties affected by the activities.

environmentprocedure

The case involves plaintiff John Aaron Vanderburg, who sued defendant Ryan Teel, an officer at the Harrison County Adult Detention Center, alleging excessive force during an incident shortly after Vanderburg's 2005 arrest, along with failure to provide medical care and various conspiracies under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983, 1985, and 1986. Teel moved for summary judgment, qualified immunity, dismissal for failure to state a claim, and to strike certain exhibits. The court dismissed the Section 1985 and 1986 claims without prejudice because the complaint did not allege the required class-based animus or other elements for those statutes, granted summary judgment on the Section 1983 conspiracy-to-deny-access-to-courts claim for lack of evidence, and denied the remaining motions, including those seeking qualified immunity on the excessive force claim, allowing those issues to proceed to trial based on disputed facts viewed in the plaintiff's favor.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

This case involves Louisiana residents suing State Farm for denying coverage under their homeowner's insurance policy for damage to their Mississippi vacation home from Hurricane Katrina, after the company paid the limits of a separate flood policy. The plaintiffs asserted claims including bad faith denial, breach of contract, misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of the Mississippi Valued Property Statute, along with requests for declaratory relief, reformation, and specific performance. The court granted partial summary judgment dismissing the claims for declaratory judgment on the water exclusion and hurricane deductible, misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty, the Valued Property Statute, indemnity, unjust enrichment, reformation, and specific performance. It denied the motion as to the remaining claims. The court reasoned that there was no genuine issue of material fact supporting the dismissed claims under the summary judgment standard, citing lack of detrimental reliance, absence of a fiduciary duty, adequate remedies at law, and time bars or lack of merit for certain tort claims.

propertytorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from a 2005 fatal car accident on Interstate 10 involving a tractor-trailer driven by an employee of Logistics Express (Logex), after which Trimac purchased Logex's assets in 2007 under an agreement governed by California law. Plaintiff Mujid Abdul sued Trimac as a successor, but Trimac moved for summary judgment arguing it had not assumed Logex's tort liabilities. The court granted the motion, holding that the Asset Purchase Agreement did not list pre-existing tort liabilities among the assumed liabilities and that none of the five California exceptions to the general rule of non-liability for asset purchasers applied. Specifically, there was no express or implied assumption, merger, mere continuation (due to lack of shared officers or inadequate consideration), fraud, or products-liability exception. The claims against Trimac were dismissed with prejudice.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Vidrine obtained a home equity line of credit from defendant AGFS secured by property in Hancock County; after he failed to maintain homeowners insurance, AGFS force-placed coverage through defendant Balboa. When Hurricane Katrina destroyed the home, Vidrine sued both companies, alleging AGFS should have purchased more adequate insurance and that Balboa improperly adjusted the claim by attributing too much damage to water rather than wind. The defendants moved to compel arbitration under the broad arbitration clause in the HELOC agreement, which covers claims against third-party insurers like Balboa and expressly includes disputes over arbitrability and the agreement's validity. The court granted the motion and stayed the case, holding that the agreement clearly and unmistakably delegates questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, so those issues and the underlying claims must be resolved in arbitration.

procedurebusiness & regulatoryproperty

The case involved foreign liquidators appointed in a Nevis winding-up proceeding for an insurance company who filed a Chapter 15 case in the US and then an adversary proceeding seeking to recover over $313 million in assets allegedly fraudulently transferred to US-located entities. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's dismissal of the adversary proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court held that 11 U.S.C. §§ 1521(a)(7) and 1523 prohibit foreign representatives from bringing avoidance actions in a Chapter 15 proceeding without first commencing a Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 case, whether the claims arise under US or foreign law. The reasoning relied on the plain language excluding specified avoidance provisions from Chapter 15 relief, the requirement in § 1523 that such actions occur only in full bankruptcy cases, and legislative history indicating Congress's intent for courts to address choice-of-law questions in those proceedings.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a dispute between WMS Industries, a slot machine manufacturer, and its insurer Federal Insurance Company over the extent of business income and extra expenses coverage under a property insurance policy following Hurricane Katrina damage to WMS's Gulfport, Mississippi facility. WMS sued Federal for bad faith after the insurer paid only limited amounts under dependent business premises and loss of utilities coverages, denying full business income coverage. The court denied Federal's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact as to whether additional payments were owed for lost income from both damaged and undamaged casino customers during the period of impaired operations caused by the property damage.

business & regulatoryproperty

In this case, plaintiff Donnie Skinner sued Assurant Health (Time Insurance), Insurance Consultant Group (ICG), and agent John Causey in Mississippi state court, alleging fraud, breach of contract, and other claims arising from misrepresentations on his health insurance application that led to denial of coverage for a preexisting heart condition. The defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting that ICG, a Mississippi entity, was fraudulently joined to destroy diversity jurisdiction. The court denied Skinner's motion to remand, concluding that there was no possibility of recovery against ICG because unrebutted evidence showed ICG acted only as an administrative conduit that forwarded the application and policy without altering information or knowledge of the misrepresentations. The decision rested on the plaintiff's failure to present any contradictory evidence to the affidavit detailing ICG's limited role.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned whether Mississippi's Education Employment Procedures Law (EEPL) applied to a separate contract for a high school basketball coaching position held by a teacher whose teaching contract was renewed. Plaintiff Ladner sued the Hancock County School District under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the district's failure to provide notice of nonrenewal for the coaching contract violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, holding that the EEPL did not apply to the coaching contract. The court reasoned that the coaching contract was on a distinct form, explicitly exempted itself from the EEPL, and covered a position not requiring a Board of Education teaching certificate, so no property interest in continued employment as coach existed under state law.

labor & employmentcivil rights

Gabriel McDowell was convicted in Mississippi state court of selling cocaine and initially sentenced as a habitual offender to 30 years without parole. After the Mississippi Supreme Court identified a mismatch between the indictment and sentencing statutes, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing, determined McDowell had a prior violent conviction, and resentenced him to life without parole. McDowell sought post-conviction relief arguing, among other claims, that he was denied counsel at the resentencing hearing. The federal district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and granted McDowell's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition on the ground that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated at resentencing, remanding the case to state court for a new sentencing proceeding with appointed counsel; the remaining claims were deemed moot. The court reasoned that the state courts' denial of counsel at resentencing was contrary to clearly established federal law.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

Jerry Hegwood sued Community First Holdings, publisher of the Picayune Item newspaper, for defamation and gross negligence after it published an article reporting his arrest for home repair fraud based on a Pearl River County Sheriff's Department press release. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The article was protected by the official report privilege because it was a fair and accurate abridgment of the official arrest report, and the underlying sheriff's release—not the newspaper—created the impression that Hegwood never performed any work. Mississippi law imposes no duty on newspapers to retract published statements, so the gross negligence claim for failure to retract also failed.

free speechtorts & liabilityprocedurecriminal law

This diversity case under Mississippi law arose from an interpleader action by Allstate Life Insurance Company regarding the proceeds of an annuity purchased by Charles Thomas Reed before his death, with competing claims from his estate (represented by executrix Virginia Parnell), his son John Reed, and friends Ralph and Suzuko Marshall, who had been named beneficiaries. Cross-claims alleged undue influence in changes to beneficiary designations and in the transfer and sale of Reed's coin collection. After a bench trial, the court held that the estate was entitled to the annuity proceeds held in the court registry and to a $10,866.90 judgment against the Marshalls for the coin collection. The core reasoning was that a confidential relationship existed between Reed and the Marshalls, creating a presumption of undue influence that they failed to rebut by clear and convincing evidence regarding either the annuity beneficiary change or the coin transfer, which also did not qualify as a valid inter vivos gift due to lack of donative intent.

propertyfamily law

This case arose from the suicide of Jerry Branton after his arrest for driving under the influence, during which he expressed distress about losing his job and made statements that could indicate suicidal intent before being placed in a jail cell. His son sued the City of Moss Point and several officers under Section 1983, alleging violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments based on claims of failure to train, failure to adopt policies for the safe care of suicidal detainees, and failure to provide medical care. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the Eighth Amendment claim and all state-law claims, but denied summary judgment on the remaining Section 1983 claims against the officers individually and against the city. The core reasoning was that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the officers had actual knowledge of a substantial risk that Branton would attempt suicide, precluding qualified immunity or dismissal of the municipal-liability claims at this stage.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

In this ERISA case, plaintiff Kim B. Schultz sued to reinstate long-term disability benefits she claimed were wrongfully denied under an employer-sponsored plan, prompting defendant Aetna Life Insurance Company to file a counterclaim seeking recovery of alleged overpayments due to Schultz's receipt of Social Security benefits. Schultz moved to dismiss the amended counterclaim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that Aetna sought legal rather than equitable relief because the funds had been spent. The court denied the motion, holding that it had jurisdiction over the counterclaim under ERISA § 502(a)(3). The core reasoning was that, under the Supreme Court's decision in Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc., the plan's reimbursement provisions created an equitable lien on specifically identified funds, allowing recovery even without strict tracing of dissipated assets.

healthcarelabor & employmentfederal power

The case involved plaintiffs who purchased a mobile home manufactured by Champion Home Builders and sold by Bud’s Mobile Homes; after discovering mold, the plaintiffs sued both defendants in Mississippi state court on claims including breach of express and implied warranties, negligence, breach of contract, and misrepresentation. The defendants removed the case to federal court and moved to stay proceedings and compel arbitration under an arbitration clause in the retail installment contract signed by the plaintiffs and Bud’s. The court granted the motion in part as to Bud’s Mobile Homes, holding that the clause was enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act because the parties to the contract had agreed to arbitrate all disputes arising from it, but denied the motion as to Champion, ruling that the non-signatory manufacturer could not compel arbitration absent evidence that the plaintiffs had accepted benefits under a manufacturer warranty or that equitable estoppel applied.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this civil case, a bank customer sued the bank and its parent company after a loan officer used her name without permission to fraudulently obtain over $43,000 from the bank over several years; the officer later pleaded guilty to federal bank fraud. The plaintiff sought partial summary judgment on issues including the bank's vicarious liability for the officer's acts, a fiduciary duty, gross negligence, and entitlement to mental anguish and punitive damages, while the bank moved for summary judgment to dismiss all claims. The court denied the plaintiff's motion and granted the bank's, holding that the bank had already made the plaintiff whole by crediting her accounts under the Uniform Commercial Code (Miss. Code Ann. § 75-3-420), which displaced her negligence claims, that no fiduciary duty existed, and that she could not establish a fraud claim against the officer because he made no misrepresentation directly to her.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Kim Schultz, who sued Aetna Life Insurance Company after it terminated her long-term disability benefits under an ERISA plan sponsored by her former employer. Schultz had received benefits for fibromyalgia for the initial 24-month period based on inability to perform her own occupation, but Aetna ended payments when she failed to meet the stricter standard of inability to work at any reasonable occupation, relying on functional capacity exams and her physician's statements that referenced those exams. The district court reviewed Aetna's factual determinations for abuse of discretion, concluded that Schultz had not shown a material factual dispute regarding the denial, and granted Aetna's motion for summary judgment while denying her cross-motion.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Pacific Life Insurance Company seeking to compel arbitration of claims brought against it by retiree Margie Heath in state court, where Heath alleged constructive fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and other tort claims arising from the sale and subsequent replacement of two variable annuity contracts through a broker. The court granted Pacific Life's motion for summary judgment, ordering that Heath's claims be submitted to binding arbitration under the National Association of Securities Dealers rules and staying the state court proceedings. The core reasoning was that Heath signed a valid pre-dispute arbitration agreement when opening her account, and she failed to present evidence showing the agreement was invalid due to fraud in the inducement or procedural or substantive unconscionability; the court applied the Federal Arbitration Act and precedents favoring enforcement of arbitration clauses absent a legal constraint. The court also found no genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment on the enforceability of the clause.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, plaintiffs hired defendant United Van Lines in 1995 to transport their household goods interstate from Florida to a storage facility in Mississippi. After discovering damage in 1997, they filed a claim with the storage facility rather than United and later sued in state court in 2000 asserting state-law claims for negligence, loss of use, and breach of contract. The court granted United's motion for summary judgment, holding that the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act preempts all state-law claims arising from interstate shipments by motor carriers. The court further reasoned that, even if a federal claim had been properly asserted, it was barred because the plaintiffs failed to submit a written claim to United within the nine-month period required by the bill of lading and federal regulations, and because they filed suit more than two years and one day after receiving notice that any claim was disallowed.

business & regulatoryprocedurepropertytorts & liability

In this insurance coverage dispute, Roy Anderson Corp., a general contractor on a University of Mississippi stadium project, sued for a declaratory judgment that subcontractor A.D.S., L.L.C.'s insurer Transcontinental Insurance Company owed it a duty to defend and indemnify in underlying litigation, based on Roy Anderson's status as an additional insured under the policy required by the subcontract. The court granted summary judgment in part to Roy Anderson, holding that Transcontinental had a duty to defend because the policy extended coverage to additional insureds for claims arising from the subcontract work, and Mississippi Code § 31-5-41 did not void that defense obligation. However, the court granted summary judgment in part to the defendants on indemnification, ruling that any agreement to indemnify Roy Anderson for its own negligence was void under the same statute, so neither A.D.S. nor Transcontinental had a duty to indemnify. The decision rested on the policy language distinguishing defense from indemnity obligations and on precedent interpreting the anti-indemnity statute in construction contracts.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability