Helen Ginger Berrigan

In Griffith v. Louisiana, plaintiff Tammy Griffith, formerly the Fiscal Manager at the Orleans Parish Juvenile Court, sued multiple judges, the State of Louisiana, the OPJC, the City of New Orleans, and Judicial Administrator Pernell Denet. She alleged sexual harassment by former Chief Judge David Bell over several years, followed by a hostile work environment, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress after she testified regarding the harassment, culminating in her November 2010 termination for alleged incompetence. Griffith brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VII, and state discrimination and tort law. The court granted the defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motions in part, dismissing most claims—including those against the individual judges, the State, the OPJC, and Denet—for failure to state a plausible claim, while denying the motions as to Griffith's Title VII and state-law retaliation claims and the parallel § 1983 claim against the City; it also barred further amendments to the complaint.

civil rightslabor & employmenttorts & liability

This case concerns defendants' motion to stay all proceedings in a civil lawsuit while they appeal the district court's prior orders denying their attempts to compel arbitration. The underlying dispute involves plaintiffs Berger and Brecek & Young Advisors, Inc., and whether Securities America, Inc. could enforce an arbitration clause in a New Account Form as an assignee, which the court had rejected for lack of documentary evidence. The court denied the stay request, holding that defendants failed to show the exceptional circumstances or genuine necessity required for a discretionary stay under the court's inherent powers or under principles of jurisdictional divestiture from the Federal Arbitration Act appeals. It balanced factors including judicial economy, potential prejudice to plaintiffs' right to litigate, and the policy favoring arbitration, but concluded that a stay was not warranted given uncertainty over defendants' arbitration rights.

procedure

The case involved union-member grips who worked on a film production and filed a grievance through their union alleging unpaid wages under a collective bargaining agreement with Spring Break Louisiana. After the union investigated and reached a Settlement Agreement with the employer that paid the disputed amounts in full, the plaintiffs sued multiple defendants under the Louisiana Wage Payment Act seeking additional wages and penalties. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that only Spring Break Louisiana was the signatory employer under the CBA, the Settlement Agreement was binding on the plaintiffs and resolved all claims for the disputed wages, and the LWPA did not apply because there were no undisputed unpaid wages at the time of the grievance or settlement.

labor & employment

The case concerned a pre-trial determination of whether defendant Joseph Smith, who faced capital charges for his alleged role in a 2004 attempted bank robbery that resulted in the death of a security officer, qualified as mentally retarded and was therefore ineligible for the death penalty under Atkins v. Virginia and the Federal Death Penalty Act. The court held an evidentiary hearing and applied the three-prong definition of mental retardation drawn from AAMR/AAIDD and DSM-IV-TR standards, requiring proof by a preponderance of the evidence of significantly subaverage intellectual functioning, significant limitations in adaptive functioning, and onset before age 18. The court reviewed extensive expert testimony on IQ testing, adaptive behavior assessments, school and employment records, and other historical evidence to evaluate each factor in turn.

criminal lawfederal power

In United States v. Hardy, the defendant in a capital case filed a motion seeking a pre-trial determination of mental retardation to preclude the death penalty. The district court conducted an extensive evidentiary hearing with expert testimony applying the AAMR and DSM-IV-TR criteria, which require proof of significantly subaverage intellectual functioning, significant limitations in adaptive functioning, and onset before age 18. The court analyzed Hardy’s IQ scores, adjustments for the Flynn effect, effort on testing, malingering concerns, and multiple retrospective assessments of adaptive behavior drawn from interviews, records, and observations by competing experts. After weighing the evidence on each statutory factor, the court issued findings of fact resolving whether Hardy met the diagnostic threshold.

criminal law

This case involved a dispute between construction contractor Shaw Constructors, Inc. and subcontractor HPD, LLC over work performed on a chemical plant project in Louisiana under an unsigned Trade Contract, including claims of improper termination, licensing issues, and a lien on the property. After initial litigation, the parties agreed to binding arbitration, where a panel found HPD had cause to terminate Shaw and ordered Shaw to pay HPD over $700,000 in damages and fees while discharging the lien. Shaw moved to vacate the award, alleging the arbitrators exceeded their powers and disregarded Louisiana law, while HPD moved to confirm it under the Federal Arbitration Act. The court denied Shaw's motion, granted HPD's motion in part by confirming the award with interest, and denied additional requested relief, reasoning that the FAA limits judicial intervention and no valid grounds for vacating the award were shown.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Merlin S. Campo suing Allstate Insurance Company, a Write-Your-Own carrier in the National Flood Insurance Program, for negligent misrepresentation under Louisiana law after Hurricane Katrina. Campo alleged that Allstate initially approved his claim and assured him of coverage, leading him to forgo renewing his policy before an extended deadline, after which Allstate denied the claim due to lapse. The court ruled in Campo's favor, awarding $98,200 in damages, finding that Allstate breached its duty to provide accurate information, Campo justifiably relied on the misrepresentations, and this caused his loss of coverage benefits. The Fifth Circuit had previously determined the claim concerned procurement rather than claims handling, allowing the state-law action to proceed.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

Milan Dediol sued his former employer Best Chevrolet and supervisor Donald Clay, claiming age-based harassment under the ADEA and religious harassment under Title VII that created a hostile work environment, resulting in constructive discharge, plus a state-law assault claim. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the federal claims, determining that the supervisor's alleged derogatory comments and actions were not severe or pervasive enough to establish a hostile work environment and that working conditions were not intolerable enough to support constructive discharge. After dismissing the federal claims, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the assault claim without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In United States v. Johnson, the defendant was convicted of three counts stemming from a 2004 attempted bank robbery in which a bank security officer was killed, with the jury imposing the death penalty after separate eligibility and selection phases. On motion for new trial, the district court affirmed the convictions but granted a new penalty phase hearing. The court reasoned that errors during the penalty selection phase, evaluated against the full record, met the standard of infecting the proceedings with unfairness amounting to a denial of due process, while guilt-phase issues were not sufficient to warrant retrial given the conceded facts and surveillance evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns claims by Ben-Trei Fertilizer against Celtic Marine, Ingram Barge, and OneBeacon Insurance arising from hurricane damage to a barge-load of urea fertilizer in transit under a 2008 service agreement, the shipment of the wrong barge to a customer, and resulting economic losses from redirected cargo and market-price declines. The district court addressed multiple motions for summary judgment, examining whether Ben-Trei had standing after obtaining a post-filing assignment of rights from the buyer Growmark, the point at which title passed under UCC § 2-401, and the existence of a proprietary interest sufficient to recover for negligence or breach. The court analyzed contract provisions limiting carrier liability, the effect of the mis-shipment on other barges, and the timing of any subrogation or assignment, while noting unresolved factual questions about instructions given to the carrier and insurance coverage.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In Cao v. Federal Election Commission, plaintiffs including a congressional candidate and Republican Party committees challenged the constitutionality of several provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act limiting contributions and coordinated expenditures by political parties. The district court, tasked under 2 U.S.C. § 437h with determining whether the challenges were frivolous before certifying questions to the en banc Fifth Circuit, conducted a review akin to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and an evidentiary inquiry. The court dismissed some claims as frivolous in light of Supreme Court precedents such as Buckley v. Valeo and Colorado II, made specific findings of fact regarding the impact of the limits, and certified the remaining colorable constitutional issues for appellate review.

electionsfree speech

This case concerns efforts by the Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center and Provident Realty Advisors to enforce a 2008 consent order against St. Bernard Parish, which had settled claims that parish housing ordinances violated the Fair Housing Act and related civil rights statutes by discriminating on the basis of race and national origin. The plaintiffs alleged that the parish's denial of applications to re-subdivide property for multi-family housing developments continued this discrimination after an earlier moratorium was struck down. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court granted the motion to enforce the consent order, concluding that the denials had both discriminatory intent and effect and were pretextual. The core reasoning was that the parish's actions breached the consent order's explicit prohibitions on denying housing opportunities or equal contract rights to minorities and that the conduct mirrored the previously invalidated restrictions.

civil rights

This case involved a motion for partial summary judgment by marine companies seeking to dismiss claims for loss of society damages brought by relatives of deceased passengers from a pleasure craft collision with a tug-barge unit in Alabama navigable waters. The court held that the general maritime law governs the claims and that the claimants are not entitled to recover non-pecuniary loss of society damages. The reasoning relied on Supreme Court precedents such as Moragne, Miles, and Higginbotham, which established that general maritime wrongful death actions are limited to pecuniary damages to ensure uniformity with statutes like the Jones Act and DOHSA, and this limitation extends to non-seafarer pleasure boat passengers in territorial waters as supported by decisions from other circuits.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned a motion to enforce a 2008 consent order resolving claims that St. Bernard Parish ordinances violated the Fair Housing Act and related civil rights statutes by discriminating on the basis of race and national origin. Plaintiffs Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center and intervenor Provident Realty Advisors alleged that a September 2008 moratorium on multi-family housing construction (buildings with more than five units) made affordable housing unavailable to minorities and breached the order's injunction against such discrimination. After an evidentiary hearing, the court granted the motion to enforce, holding that the moratorium had a disparate racial impact, was enacted with discriminatory intent, and therefore violated the consent order's prohibitions on denying housing or equal property rights to minorities. The court's analysis relied on statistical evidence of the moratorium's effects on African American populations relative to white populations, the parish's history of restrictive housing measures, and the specific affordable housing projects halted by the ordinance.

civil rightspropertybusiness & regulatory

Terrance Jones filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking relief from his 2001 conviction for second degree murder, raising four claims including issues with the admission of witness statements at trial. The State initially challenged timeliness and exhaustion, but the court found the petition timely filed, all claims exhausted, and ordered a response on the merits. After review, the court granted the petition, concluding that admission of a key witness's prior recorded statements violated the Confrontation Clause and that the error was not harmless.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves multiple procedural motions in a civil lawsuit brought by plaintiff O'Dwyer against Louisiana state agencies, police troopers Nelson and Ivey, Justice Kimball, the Louisiana Supreme Court, and others, arising from the plaintiff's arrests in 2006 and 2007 and related claims including under the Louisiana Public Records Act. The court denied a motion to stay the entire case pending appeal of qualified immunity rulings as to the troopers, finding no jurisdiction only over those specific appellants and no authority to halt proceedings against other defendants. It partially granted the plaintiff's motion to review the magistrate's order by allowing amendment to add new defendants but upheld denial of reasserted claims against the Supreme Court and imposition of sanctions; it also granted enrollment of additional counsel, denied a motion to strike, and imposed a $10,000 sanction on the plaintiff payable to the court's disciplinary fund for bad-faith filings containing unprofessional language. The decisions rested on interpretations of appellate jurisdiction limits, Rule 15's liberal amendment policy, and the need for measured sanctions to address conduct after prior warnings.

civil rightsprocedurecriminal law

This case involved two railroad employees who sued their employer, Kansas City Southern Railway Co., under the Federal Employers' Liability Act for injuries sustained when their train collided with a truck trailer stuck on the tracks. The plaintiffs alleged that KCS failed to provide a safe workplace by not installing safety features like seat belts, padding, or adequate warnings and dispatching procedures. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the claims. It reasoned that the plaintiffs provided no evidence that the requested safety measures were required or would have prevented the injuries, and that federal railroad safety regulations under the Federal Railroad Safety Act precluded the negligence claims.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityfederal powerprocedure

This case involved a 1994 lawsuit by apartment owners against Shakertown 1992 and its insurer over allegedly defective shingle siding, which resulted in a 1998 amended judgment under Louisiana redhibition law awarding money damages to the plaintiffs conditioned on their return of the siding to the defendant. Years after the Fifth Circuit affirmed that judgment, the plaintiffs attempted to satisfy the return condition in 2008, prompting the defendants to seek relief from the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) and 60(b)(6) due to the delay. The court granted the motions to vacate, reasoning that the plaintiffs' extended inactivity made timely return impossible, altered the parties' positions, and rendered enforcement of the conditional judgment inequitable under the circumstances.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved the Bank of Louisiana's claims against Aetna entities for reimbursement under a stop-loss insurance policy covering the Bank's self-insured employee health plan, following a transition to fully insured coverage in 2000-2001. After ERISA preemption eliminated most state-law claims, the Fifth Circuit remanded only a narrow breach-of-contract claim alleging Aetna failed to pay claims processed after the three-month extension period ended. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court held that the Bank failed to show any unpaid amounts within the policy terms, that Aetna had already paid more than required under the contract, and that the agent's December 2000 letter did not create additional contractual obligations; the court therefore granted summary judgment to the defendants on all remaining claims.

healthcarebusiness & regulatory

This case involves former employees of the New Orleans Hornets suing the team for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Hornets raised two defenses, claiming exemptions as a seasonal amusement or recreational establishment and as a retail or service establishment. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding that the team operates for more than seven months per year and fails the receipts test for the seasonal exemption. It also ruled that the Hornets do not qualify as a retail establishment because they produce professional basketball entertainment rather than reselling goods or services in a retail capacity.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory