Robert Gillespie James

In United States v. Stevens, two defendants who served as elected members of the Monroe City Council were charged in a two-count indictment with RICO and Hobbs Act violations based on nine alleged predicate acts of public bribery, in which they accepted cash and other consideration from a cooperating witness in exchange for assisting the witness with matters before city boards and officials. The defendants moved to sever their trials due to potential prejudice from joint evidence and recordings, to dismiss Count 1 for failure to adequately allege a RICO enterprise or pattern, and for a bill of particulars to clarify the charges. The court denied all motions, finding that the defendants were properly joined, that jurors could compartmentalize the evidence against each defendant (who dealt separately with the witness) with appropriate limiting instructions and without Bruton issues, that the indictment sufficiently pled the required elements and predicate acts, and that the government had provided adequate notice of the charges through discovery.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a copyright infringement claim by Frances Parker against John Dufresne, alleging that Dufresne copied elements from her copyrighted manuscript about two murders into a short story. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Dufresne and denied Parker's cross-motion, finding no substantial similarity between the protectable elements of the manuscript and the short story. The reasoning was that facts are not copyrightable, and the fictional additions and arrangement did not meet the threshold for actionable copying.

propertyprocedure

In Hicks v. Wilkinson, pro se petitioner Duncan E. Hicks sought federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from his 1998 Louisiana armed robbery conviction and the ten-year hard labor sentence imposed in 2008. After pleading guilty in state court, Hicks escaped custody, committed a federal bank robbery, served his federal sentence, and was returned to Louisiana for delayed state sentencing; he argued that the multi-year delay violated his rights to speedy sentencing under state law and the U.S. Constitution. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and dismissed the petition with prejudice, holding that the state appellate court's rejection of the claim was not unreasonable because Hicks failed to demonstrate prejudice from the delay. The court noted that even assuming a federal constitutional right to speedy sentencing exists, the petitioner did not show that any delay caused actual harm or that state findings were contrary to clearly established law.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over coverage under a Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP) issued pursuant to the National Flood Insurance Program for a property consisting of three buildings in Louisiana. The plaintiff claimed coverage for flood damage to all three buildings caused by Hurricane Gustav, but the defendant insurer, a Write Your Own company, paid only for the motel building and denied coverage for the restaurant and office buildings. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case, reasoning that the policy unambiguously insured only one building, that estoppel claims are unavailable when federal funds are involved, and that the insured had a duty to understand the policy terms.

business & regulatoryfederal powerproperty

This case involves a patent dispute between Shield Pack, LLC and CDF Corp. over U.S. Patent No. 5,788,121, which covers bag-in-box liners with specific four-side-seal designs, oblique seal portions, and triangular fin portions used for transporting liquids and powders. Shield Pack sought a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity, arguing that its Quad bags with curved corner seals did not infringe and that the patent was anticipated by prior art from Kirin Beer Kabushiki Kaisha. CDF cross-moved for a finding of no invalidity. The court denied Shield Pack's motion for summary judgment on both non-infringement and invalidity and granted CDF's cross-motion, holding that the Kirin patents did not anticipate the '121 patent because they lacked disclosure of required elements such as side seal portions and a four-side-seal type bag body under the court's claim construction.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Montgomery v. Sears Roebuck & Co., a black female employee who worked at Sears for over three decades sued the company and her white male store manager under Title VII, claiming race discrimination and hostile work environment after she received written disciplinary actions, performance improvement plans, and other negative treatment following her complaints about the manager. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing those claims, while granting the plaintiff leave to amend her complaint to add a retaliation claim that would proceed to trial. The court reasoned that the plaintiff suffered no adverse employment action because her position, pay rate, and duties remained unchanged, and the evidence did not show severe or pervasive harassment based on race.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case concerns a title dispute between the United States and Louisiana over alleged relictions surrounding Lake Bistineau, formed after the removal of the Great Raft in the 19th century altered the lake's ordinary high water mark. Louisiana and a lessee moved for summary judgment, arguing that Louisiana law governs ownership and that the United States is estopped from asserting title to the disputed lands. The court granted the motions in part, holding that Louisiana law applies as the rule of decision under the equal-footing doctrine and the Submerged Lands Act, but denied the estoppel claims and declined to decide actual ownership under state law. The ruling rests on the principle that states acquire title to navigable waters and their beds upon admission to the Union, with federal retention of certain surrounding lands preserved by statute.

propertyfederal powerprocedure

In United States v. Martin, the defendant was pulled over on Interstate 20 for an obscured license plate, after which the trooper questioned her about her travel plans, grew suspicious of her responses and demeanor, ran additional records checks, and ultimately searched her vehicle, uncovering over 25 pounds of cocaine. Martin moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the stop was unlawfully prolonged without reasonable suspicion. The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion after a hearing, and the district judge adopted the recommendation following de novo review. The court reasoned that the trooper's observations—such as Martin's friendly demeanor, short trip to visit new friends, and sparse luggage—did not rise to the level of specific, articulable facts indicating criminal activity, and the extension of the detention to seek consent and await backup violated the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, all physical evidence from the car and Martin's person was suppressed.

criminal lawprocedure

In United States v. Kimes, defendant Beau Kimes was convicted after trial on federal drug conspiracy and distribution charges and later filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The court granted the motion, vacated the original sentence, and ordered re-sentencing as if Kimes had pled guilty to the relevant counts. The core reasoning was that counsel's failure to advise Kimes about the sentencing advantages of a guilty plea (including a potential reduction for acceptance of responsibility) fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under Strickland v. Washington, and this deficiency prejudiced Kimes because the record indicated he likely would have accepted a plea and received a lower sentence. The decision relied on evidence from the sentencing hearing and post-trial communications showing no adequate plea advice was given.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a lawsuit by approximately 148 current and former firefighters against the City of Monroe alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime wages. The court addressed a partial summary judgment motion concerning nineteen plaintiffs who served as Deputy and District Fire Chiefs, determining whether they qualified for the executive or administrative exemptions from overtime. The court granted the motion, finding that these employees satisfied the duties and salary basis tests under FLSA regulations because they performed management functions including supervision of personnel, staffing decisions, training coordination, incident command support, and grievance handling, without improper pay deductions that would negate their exempt status.

labor & employment

In this case, plaintiff Linda Rollins sued several medical device manufacturers after suffering injuries during an angiogram when an Angio-Seal device failed to deploy properly, leading to complications that required emergency surgery. She asserted claims under the Louisiana Products Liability Act and other theories, including failure to follow FDA reporting and manufacturing requirements. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing express preemption under the Medical Device Amendments to the FDCA and insufficient pleading of causation and other elements. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report, granting the motion in part by dismissing the claim for failure to file an adverse event report specific to her procedure, but denying it as to the remaining claims after Rollins amended her complaint to allege that noncompliance with FDA rules caused her injuries. The core reasoning was that while some FDA-related claims are preempted, parallel state claims alleging violations of specific federal requirements can proceed if causation is adequately pled.

healthcaretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a motion by D’Arbonne Woods Charter School to intervene in a long-standing school desegregation lawsuit against the Union Parish School Board and to obtain judicial authorization to open a K-6 charter school in a leased former public school building beginning in the 2008-2009 year. The court reviewed the parish’s history under a 1970 desegregation decree, demographic data showing racial imbalances in student populations, and projected enrollment impacts from the proposed charter school. Applying the Green factors and the board’s affirmative duty to eliminate racial discrimination root and branch, the court assessed whether the charter school’s operation would impede unitary status or desegregation efforts. After an evidentiary hearing, the court evaluated the specific student assignment and facility issues raised by the intervention request.

civil rights

This case is a wrongful death and survival action brought by the family of Thomas Poindexter, who drowned in 2003 after falling over a weir in Big Creek while fishing; plaintiffs sued the Tensas Basin Levee District and the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging the weir created an unreasonably hazardous condition under Louisiana negligence law. The district court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court reasoned that the Fifth Circuit had already determined the duty to protect against known dangers of being swept over the weir extends to the risk of entrapment, that factual questions remain about whether the hazard was open and obvious to similarly situated persons, and that issues of cause-in-fact tied to the decedent's knowledge preclude summary disposition.

torts & liabilityfederal power

This case involved an employment discrimination lawsuit by Latoya Collins against her former employer Sailormen Inc., alleging she was terminated due to her race and her child's disability in violation of Title VII, the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law, and the ADA, and that she received unequal wages based on race. The court granted Sailormen's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims with prejudice. The court found that Sailormen had articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the termination, including documented performance issues such as failing to meet food cost targets, customer complaints, and tardiness, and that Collins failed to show these reasons were pretextual. On the wage claims, the court determined the pay differential was explained by the greater experience of higher-paid managers and that some claims were time-barred.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved the United States seeking partial summary judgment against Aging Care Home Health, Inc. and its principals for submitting Medicare claims that allegedly violated the Stark Act's prohibitions on referrals from physicians with financial relationships to the provider. The claims covered services to patients of five physicians who received compensation from Aging Care between 1999 and 2003, resulting in $427,503.88 in Medicare payments. The court declined to adopt the magistrate judge's recommendation that Stark II was unenforceable during the relevant period or that an earlier regulation provided an exception. Instead, it held that Stark II applied alongside 42 C.F.R. § 424.22, that the financial relationships were prohibited, and that the Government was entitled to recover on its claims for payment by mistake and unjust enrichment, granting summary judgment in part.

healthcarebusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a long-standing school desegregation lawsuit filed by the United States against the West Carroll Parish School District in Louisiana, which had operated a racially dual school system prior to 1969. The Government moved for summary judgment, arguing that the district had not eliminated the vestiges of discrimination in student assignment to the extent practicable, as several schools remained racially identifiable or one-race decades after the original desegregation order. The district cross-moved for a finding of unitary status, claiming it had satisfied its obligations. The court granted the Government's motion and denied the district's, holding that a presumption of causation from the prior de jure segregation applied to the persistent racial imbalances, that the district had made no meaningful efforts to desegregate the affected schools, and that feasible reassignment plans existed to achieve greater balance. Trial was ordered to proceed on an appropriate remedial plan.

civil rights

Rachelle Owens sued the Town of Delhi, its police chief, and Officer Nielsen under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that Nielsen violated her and her minor daughter's Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by entering and searching their home without a warrant after a 911 hang-up call; she also alleged an unconstitutional municipal policy, failure to train, and state-law claims for negligence and intentional misconduct. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that Owens had consented to the search, that Nielsen was entitled to qualified immunity, that no unconstitutional policy or training failure existed, and that state-law immunities applied; Owens filed no opposition. The court granted summary judgment on the federal claims, holding that consent eliminated any constitutional violation, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

The case involved members of a street preachers' organization who demonstrated with signs critical of abortion near a highway intersection in Columbia, Louisiana, leading to police requests to move for safety and property reasons, an arrest for alleged traffic and permit violations, and a subsequent lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming First and Fourteenth Amendment violations. The court denied the preachers' motion for summary judgment and granted the town's, dismissing the claim with prejudice while also denying attorneys' fees. It reasoned that a prior preliminary injunction was based solely on the inapplicability of the cited state statutes to the preachers' activities rather than on the constitutional merits of their claims, so the preachers were not prevailing parties and no basis existed for finding a violation or awarding fees.

free speechreligious libertycivil rights

This case involved Cynthia Dowles' appeal of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of her application for supplemental security income benefits, which she filed in 1997 alleging disability due to systemic lupus erythematosus with symptoms including joint pain, swelling, fever, and fatigue. The district court granted the appeal, reversed and vacated the Commissioner's final decision, and awarded Dowles SSI benefits starting from her 1997 protective filing date, remanding only for calculation of the benefit amount. The court reasoned that the ALJ had failed to properly weigh the opinions of Dowles' treating physician, overlooked evidence of her limitations from lupus and medication side effects, and incorrectly applied the medical-vocational guidelines without considering the impact of periodic flare-ups on her ability to maintain employment.

healthcare

This case involved a tax refund suit by North Louisiana Rehabilitation Center, Inc., a subsidiary of Continental Medical Systems, against the United States after the IRS assessed employment and unemployment taxes on the ground that physicians serving as medical and program directors should have been classified as employees rather than independent contractors for the 1990-1995 tax years. The plaintiff sought a refund of a portion of the assessed taxes and relief under Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978, which provides a safe harbor from employment tax liability if certain consistency and reasonable-basis requirements are met. The court denied the plaintiff's appeal of a magistrate judge's order allowing the government to withdraw an admission but granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, awarding a refund of $7,010.90. It held that the plaintiff satisfied Section 530 because all relevant physicians were treated as independent contractors, required tax returns were filed consistently with that treatment, and the classification decision was based on reasonable, good-faith reliance on advice from in-house and outside counsel, with the substantive consistency test applied separately to each subsidiary.

taxeslabor & employmentbusiness & regulatory