S. Maurice Hicks jr

The case involved a motion in limine by defendant Bobby Lee Kimble in a federal criminal prosecution for conspiracy to commit health care fraud, wire fraud, and mail fraud, along with related substantive counts, based on allegations that he and others staged automobile accidents to file fraudulent insurance claims. The government sought to introduce evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) of three prior unindicted hit-and-run claims made by Kimble in 2006, 2007, and 2008. The court denied the motion, holding that the evidence was admissible because it was relevant to issues of intent, knowledge, and lack of accident or mistake rather than character. The decision relied on Fifth Circuit precedent in United States v. Floyd, which upheld admission of similar extrinsic evidence in a staged-accident fraud case, and found that the probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under Rule 403, with limiting jury instructions to be provided.

criminal lawprocedurehealthcare

This case involves a lawsuit by Mary Salard, as natural tutrix for her minor children L.A.S. and S.S., against Greg Salard for compensatory and exemplary damages arising from alleged sexual abuse constituting battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendant moved for summary judgment after his bankruptcy discharge in Alaska, arguing that the claims were discharged because no timely objection was filed despite the plaintiff's notice of the proceedings. The court granted the motion, finding that the mother had actual knowledge of the bankruptcy deadlines but failed to preserve the claims on behalf of the children, resulting in their discharge under the Bankruptcy Code. The claims were dismissed with prejudice as a matter of law.

family lawtorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a dispute over whether a 1950 oil and gas lease on Louisiana property covers deep mineral formations such as the Haynesville Shale that were not accessible or known at the time of the lease. The plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that the lease did not apply to those deeper formations and damages for the defendant's refusal to release any claims to them. On a motion for reconsideration of a prior denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss, the court granted the motion, holding that the lease's granting clause is clear and unambiguous. The core reasoning was that, under the Louisiana Mineral Code which governs the lease's interpretation, absent any explicit language limiting or excluding depths the lease extends to all minerals at all depths underlying the surface.

property

The case involved the cities of Alexandria and Pineville, Louisiana, suing FEMA, the Department of Homeland Security, the Army Corps of Engineers, and related officials over FEMA's de-accreditation of the Red River Levee System from the National Flood Insurance Program, which the plaintiffs alleged violated the Spending Clause and Tenth Amendment by imposing costs on local governments for federal responsibilities. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief, an injunction preventing issuance of new flood maps, and other remedies tied to the National Flood Insurance Act and related statutes. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), holding that sovereign immunity barred the claims because neither the Administrative Procedure Act nor the National Flood Insurance Act provided a waiver of immunity absent a final agency determination under 42 U.S.C. § 4104(g).

federal powerenvironmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerns a declaratory judgment action by Lafayette Insurance Company regarding its obligations under a commercial general liability policy in connection with an underlying copyright infringement lawsuit filed by Looney Ricks Kiss Architects against developers and others involved in apartment complex projects. Lafayette moved for summary judgment declaring no coverage and no duty to defend, while LRK moved for partial summary judgment asserting a duty to defend. The court granted both motions, holding that LRK lacked standing because it was not an insured under the policy and that the policy excluded coverage for claims arising out of breach of contract under the personal and advertising injury provisions. The decision applied Louisiana insurance law, focusing on the complaint allegations, policy language, and an exclusion for injuries that would not have occurred but for a contract breach, finding no possibility of coverage.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves the EEOC's lawsuit against IESI Louisiana Corp. on behalf of Ronald Harper, alleging that his termination shortly after disclosing his dyslexia violated the Americans with Disabilities Act through discriminatory discharge and failure to provide reasonable accommodation. The defendant sought partial summary judgment to exclude damages evidence for discovery violations under Rule 26, bar back pay after 2007 due to failure to mitigate, eliminate front pay claims, and apply a $100,000 cap on compensatory and punitive damages based on employee numbers. The court granted the motion in part by dismissing back pay after Harper's 2007 job loss and all front pay due to voluntary unemployment without mitigation efforts, while denying the rest because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding disclosure sanctions, mitigation overall, and whether IESI entities should be combined to determine the applicable damages cap under Title VII. The decision applied Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26, 37, and 56 standards for summary judgment and discovery compliance.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff's efforts to collect on a 2006 Michigan state court judgment against Webster Manufacturing after discovering that Webster had transferred its assets to another entity via a fraudulent bill of sale. Following a bench trial, the district court ruled in the plaintiff's favor on a revocatory action under Louisiana law, finding the transfer fraudulent and ordering seizure of assets to satisfy the judgment. The plaintiff then moved for attorney fees and excess costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the court's inherent powers, alleging that the defendants and their counsel had unreasonably multiplied the proceedings through frivolous defenses and obstructive conduct. The court denied the motion, reasoning that the complained-of conduct related to the underlying fraudulent transfer rather than post-filing litigation tactics that vexatiously multiplied proceedings, and that sanctions under § 1927 were not warranted on the record presented.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case is a maritime personal injury action in which plaintiff Daniel Regan was seriously injured after falling from the bow of a Starcraft pontoon boat rented from a U.S. Army Morale, Welfare and Recreation facility at Toledo Bend Reservoir. Defendant Starcraft, facing liability, asserted third-party claims against the United States alleging negligence in the boat's maintenance, rental procedures, and entrustment to operator John Vandergriff. The district court granted the United States' motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims against it. The court reasoned that Starcraft failed to present evidence showing the United States knew or should have known Vandergriff was likely to operate the boat unsafely, given his valid boater safety card, prior rental without incident, and lack of any known issues with the vessel's condition relevant to the accident.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves multiple plaintiff-debtors who sued Kansas City Southern Railway Co. but had previously filed for bankruptcy without disclosing their potential claims as required by bankruptcy law. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing judicial estoppel due to the nondisclosure and, in some Chapter 7 cases, lack of standing because the claims belonged to the bankruptcy trustees. The court granted summary judgment on most motions, dismissing the claims of plaintiffs Smith, Cockerm, Clark, Cooper, and Williams with prejudice where they had taken inconsistent positions by failing to disclose the claims in their bankruptcy proceedings, and dismissing Cockerm's remaining claims without prejudice for lack of standing. The core reasoning relied on Fifth Circuit precedent holding that debtors have a continuing duty to disclose all known or potential causes of action as assets, and that failure to do so prevents them from later pursuing those claims. The court applied standards from cases like Kane v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. to determine that the nondisclosures were not inadvertent and warranted dismissal.

procedureproperty

In Golla v. City of Bossier City, plaintiffs Daniel and Christina Golla sued the City of Bossier City and multiple police officers after officers responded to a 911 call about a suicidal man at the home where the Gollas were staying; during the response, Officer Harris shot and killed the man (Michael McDaniel) after he allegedly pointed a shotgun, and the Gollas were detained, handcuffed, and questioned without Miranda warnings. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. The core reasoning was that the officer's use of deadly force was justified by the perceived threat, the detention and handcuffing of Mr. Golla were reasonable for officer safety during an investigative stop, any questioning did not violate constitutional rights in the absence of formal charges or custody triggering Miranda, and no other constitutional violations such as under the Equal Protection Clause were established.

civil rightscriminal law

The case involved a plaintiff who entered into a three-year oil, gas, and mineral lease with Pride Oil & Gas Properties, Inc. for 17 acres in Louisiana in exchange for $100 and royalties. After learning of the valuable Haynesville Shale formation beneath the property, the plaintiff sued to rescind the lease, alleging fraud by concealment of the shale's existence and value, mistake as to the substantial quality of the leased rights, and that the price paid was grossly inadequate. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, dismissing all claims with prejudice. It held that the fraud allegations lacked the required particularity under Louisiana procedural rules, that an error regarding the speculative value of undiscovered mineral deposits does not constitute a sufficient cause for rescission under the Civil Code, and that the claims effectively amounted to an invalid lesion-beyond-moiety action.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Kelly McKinley alleging that defendants, including Edward Parker and Paula Powell, unlawfully obtained and disclosed her consumer credit report without authorization, leading to financial harm, in violation of state statutes and the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Defendants Parker and Powell moved to dismiss the claims under Louisiana Revised Statutes 6:333 and 9:3571. The court granted the motion and dismissed those claims with prejudice, reasoning that the statutes impose duties only on financial institutions such as banks and credit card companies, not on private individuals like the defendants. McKinley's claim under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act against these defendants was not affected by the ruling.

proceduretorts & liability

The case centered on plaintiff Kelly McKinley’s allegations that defendant James Gregory Powell, an employee of Harvey Toyota, unlawfully requested and disclosed her consumer credit report without authorization, leading to financial harm through false information shared with creditors. McKinley asserted claims including negligence and violations of Louisiana Revised Statutes 6:333 and 9:3571, in addition to a federal Fair Credit Reporting Act claim. Powell filed an unopposed motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the two state statutory claims. The court granted the motion and dismissed those claims with prejudice, reasoning that the statutes create confidentiality duties only for financial institutions such as banks, and Powell did not qualify as such an entity or act on behalf of one. The FCRA claim against Powell was left intact.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In Price v. Roadhouse Grill, Inc., plaintiffs Jerry and Ruth Price sued the restaurant operator, property owner Eastgate Associates, and insurer United Fire after Ruth Price tripped and fell over a car stop in a handicap parking space outside the restaurant in November 2004. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the car stop was not defective or unreasonably dangerous. The district court granted the motions and dismissed the claims with prejudice, finding no genuine issue of material fact because the car stops were properly maintained and secured, complied with ADA regulations according to both parties' experts, had no history of prior accidents, and presented an open and obvious condition that played no causal role in the fall under Louisiana premises liability law.

torts & liability

In Lester v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, plaintiffs Joanna and Darien Lester sued the Department of Veterans Affairs alleging that Ms. Lester, an African-American female employee, faced discrimination based on race, sex, and religion in work assignments, holiday and on-call scheduling, training opportunities, and other conditions, along with claims of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and loss of consortium. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims. It reasoned that Ms. Lester failed to present evidence showing the employer's actions were pretextual or motivated by discrimination, that Ms. Nordan was not a valid comparator due to lacking required licensure, and that the incidents did not rise to the level of a severe or pervasive hostile work environment under Title VII. The court also noted that the administrative process had already found no discrimination.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involves limited partners in a Louisiana casino venture (Robin and the Pipers) suing the general partner (Binion) and related entities over alleged breaches of the partnership agreement, including improper capital expenditures, distributions, and transfers, as well as disputes arising from 1999 buyout agreements executed to facilitate a merger with another casino operator. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing all claims. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that the plain language of the buyout agreement's Participation Clause did not incorporate a "bona fide offer" trigger from other provisions and that certain claims (such as LUTPA violations) were time-barred or unsupported. The ruling rested on Louisiana rules of contract interpretation requiring examination of the agreement as a whole and application of prescription periods.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved John Maranto, a victim of identity theft, suing CitiFinancial Retail Services, Inc. under the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA) and Louisiana state laws after the company continued to bill him for fraudulent charges on an account opened by an impostor. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment in part, dismissing the FCBA claim with prejudice, while dismissing the state law claims without prejudice. The court reasoned that Maranto failed to provide the required written notice of the billing error to the specific address designated by CitiFinancial, as mandated by the FCBA, and that verbal disputes or notices sent to an incorrect address were insufficient to trigger the creditor's obligations under the statute. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims after dismissing the federal claim.

business & regulatory

The case involved a mother suing the Caddo Parish Sheriff on behalf of her deceased son, alleging that sheriff's deputies unlawfully stopped a vehicle without probable cause, chased and handcuffed her son, and threw cold water on him causing his death, with claims under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1985 as well as Louisiana state tort law. The court granted summary judgment dismissing the federal claims, finding no evidence that an official policy or custom caused any constitutional deprivation under Section 1983 and no allegation or evidence of a conspiracy based on discriminatory animus under Section 1985. It denied summary judgment on the state law claims but dismissed them without prejudice after declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them following dismissal of all federal claims.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Patrick Carter suing his former employer ENSCO and the plan administrator after his claim for medical benefits from a single-vehicle accident was denied under the health plan's "illegal acts" exclusion. Carter had been driving while intoxicated, as shown by hospital records, a blood alcohol level above the legal limit, and the police report, and the administrator determined this constituted an illegal act contributing to the injuries. The court reviewed the denial under an abuse-of-discretion standard because the plan granted the administrator maximum discretionary authority to interpret terms and decide eligibility. Finding the administrator's decision consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the plan and supported by the administrative record, the court dismissed all claims with prejudice.

labor & employmenthealthcare

The case involved plaintiff Horace Deaville, who had an unpaid credit card balance from Capital One Bank that had prescribed under Louisiana law and become unenforceable. He accepted a 2001 pre-approved credit card offer from Capital One entities, believing it created a new account with no connection to the old debt, but the defendants transferred the old balance to the new account, sent a billing statement demanding payment, and maintained that the solicitation's reaffirmation language revived the debt. Deaville sued under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Truth-in-Lending Act, and various state laws, alleging improper collection efforts and failure to address his disputes. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the FDCPA, TILA, and Virginia state law claims, finding no genuine issues of material fact and that the plaintiff failed to establish essential elements of those claims, while dismissing the Louisiana state law claims without prejudice for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.

business & regulatoryprocedure