This case concerns the St. Bernard Port's effort to expropriate approximately 70 acres of riverfront property owned by Violet Dock Port under Louisiana law for public port expansion and economic recovery purposes. Violet had used the property to provide layberth services to U.S. Navy vessels under a federal contract and removed the expropriation action to federal court. The district court granted the Port's motion to remand, holding that Violet failed to establish any valid basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The court reasoned that the underlying dispute arose under state eminent domain statutes without a federal question or other jurisdictional hook, despite the property's connection to a national defense contract. The court denied the Port's request for attorneys' fees and costs.
Tameka Blackstone sued Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. and related entities after her home flooded during Hurricane Katrina, claiming that Chase breached the mortgage contract by failing to maintain flood insurance through escrow payments and that she detrimentally relied on representations about the insurance. The court granted Chase's motion to dismiss the claims for breach of contract and detrimental reliance. The reasoning was that Blackstone did not allege any specific contractual provision requiring flood insurance or Chase to pay the premiums, and did not identify any representation by Chase that the property required flood insurance on which she could have relied. The court allowed her to amend the complaint within twenty days.
In this case, satellite television technicians sued DirecTV and a related Home Service Provider under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Louisiana Wage Payment Act, alleging they were employees who were denied proper wages, overtime, and other compensation through practices like unrecorded work time and charge-backs. The defendants moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs were independent contractors rather than employees. The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact on the employment status question. The core reasoning centered on disputed evidence about the defendants' control over the technicians' work schedules, methods, and pay, which is relevant to both the FLSA economic realities test and the LWPA right-to-control analysis.
This case involved a worker, Michael Williams, who was injured while performing sandblasting and painting on offshore oil platforms and sued his employer Danos & Curole and the platform owner ERT under the Jones Act and maritime law, claiming seaman status. The court granted summary judgment to both defendants, finding that Williams did not qualify as a Jones Act seaman because the vast majority of his work time was spent on the platforms rather than on a vessel. The court also held that ERT was not liable for the independent contractor's alleged negligence because ERT did not retain operational control over the work.
The case involved a dispute over insurance coverage for fire damage to a store operated by Wessam, LLC, which was the named insured under a commercial property policy issued by Axis Surplus Insurance Company. Following the appointment of Third Millennium as receiver for the LLC in a separate dissolution proceeding, Axis filed suit seeking a declaration of no coverage based on allegations that LLC members Hamed and Hussein caused the fire, while Hamed filed a counterclaim seeking policy proceeds. The court granted Axis's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the counterclaim, ruling that under Louisiana law only the named insured, additional insureds, or third-party beneficiaries may enforce an insurance policy, and that Hamed and Hussein, as individual members of the LLC, did not qualify.
In this employment discrimination case, African-American plaintiff David Soublet alleged that the Louisiana Tax Commission failed to promote him to Tax Supervisor because of his race and later retaliated against him after he challenged the decision through civil service and EEOC channels. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the failure-to-promote claim, while Soublet cross-moved on both that claim and his retaliation claim. The court denied all motions, finding genuine issues of material fact on whether the employer's stated reasons for selecting another candidate were pretextual and on whether the alleged adverse actions were causally linked to Soublet's protected activity. The decision rests on the summary-judgment standard requiring that factual disputes be resolved by a jury rather than resolved on the existing record.
