Edith Brown Clement

William Micheál Furman was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to violate federal laws including bank fraud and money laundering, as well as attempted bank fraud, and his conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Years later, Furman filed a series of pro se motions seeking to discharge all charges and liens, expunge the records of the proceeding, obtain military back pay and benefits from 1991 onward, recognize a trust as tax exempt, and declare his property exempt from taxes, along with related requests for default and compulsion of the clerk. The court denied all requested relief, holding that the government had timely responded, that the district court lacked jurisdiction over back pay claims exceeding $10,000, and that no affirmative rights violation or other basis existed to support expungement or the remaining demands.

criminal lawproceduretaxes

The case involved a contract dispute over the administration of Project Renaissance, a federally funded home repair program for low-income residents, where plaintiffs Hibernia and HCDC alleged that defendant U.S.E. and its employee Marquette improperly disbursed loan and grant funds, leading to non-reimbursement by the City of New Orleans. Plaintiffs sued U.S.E., Marquette, and insurer Columbia in Louisiana state court, and defendants removed the action to federal court on diversity grounds. Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing that removal was untimely and that Marquette's presence destroyed diversity. The court denied the motion to remand, holding that the thirty-day removal period began upon Columbia's actual receipt of the petition rather than service on the Secretary of State, making removal timely, and that Marquette was fraudulently joined because Louisiana law does not recognize a personal negligence claim against an employee for acts performed in a commercial, contractual context on behalf of the employer.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In this maritime employment dispute, plaintiff Darren Myles sued his former employer, Sabine Transportation Company, alleging that a false-positive drug test led to his termination; he asserted claims for wrongful discharge under general maritime law, negligence and medical malpractice, violation of shipping articles, and related state-law claims. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the wrongful discharge claim, which it found had been abandoned in favor of other theories, and on the shipping articles claim because the statutory remedy did not apply to a discharge occurring after the voyage began and after one month’s wages had been earned. It denied summary judgment on the negligence and medical malpractice claims, finding them adequately pled under federal notice-pleading standards and potentially viable under general maritime law precedents imposing a duty on shipowners to provide competent medical care, and it rejected the Labor Management Relations Act preemption argument because the defendant offered no evidence that Myles was a union member covered by a collective bargaining agreement. The ruling turned on the liberal pleading rules, the specific language of 46 U.S.C. § 10313, and the absence of evidence supporting preemption.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a female firefighter who alleged that her employer, the St. Tammany Parish Fire Protection District, denied her requests for half-days off to attend classes while granting similar accommodations to male colleagues for school and personal reasons, prompting her resignation; she was later offered reinstatement with restored seniority and scheduling flexibility but claimed the district failed to honor the agreement and that she faced threats and a proposed transfer. The plaintiff sued the district and various officials for sex discrimination under Title VII, constructive discharge, procedural due process violations, and conspiracy. On the defendants' motion to dismiss, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding that the allegations sufficiently stated claims for discrimination and constructive discharge to survive dismissal but dismissing other claims such as conspiracy and due process for failure to meet pleading requirements or legal standards.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case concerns whether Scottsdale Insurance Co. must provide coverage under an insurance policy to Space Walk Sales, Inc. for personal injury claims brought by Marjorie Harris, amid complications from similarly named competing companies and a family dispute. Scottsdale moved for summary judgment, arguing that Space Walk Sales failed to provide timely notice of the claims as required by the policy and that products liability coverage was excluded. The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Space Walk Sales had actual notice of the suit in 1994 given the circumstances of mail forwarding and corporate name confusion. The court also noted that the full policy language was not provided, preventing interpretation of the notice provisions and any products exclusion under Louisiana law.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves the Orleans Parish School Board seeking to recover damages from insurers after the bankruptcy of Group Insurance Administration of Louisiana (GIA-LA), which had been hired to administer the School Board's employee health care benefits program along with Bankers Life and Casualty Company. The School Board alleged contractual and tort claims against GIA-LA's insurers, including Chubb (for employee theft under a crime policy), Bankers (for solidary liability and its own malfeasance), and AISLIC, stemming from GIA-LA's alleged improper claims processing between 1989 and 1994. The court granted Chubb's motion for summary judgment in full, finding that the policy's definition of "employee" did not cover the controlling officer whose acts were deemed those of the corporation itself, consistent with Fifth Circuit precedent. It granted Bankers' motion on solidary liability claims but ordered refiling on individual claims, and granted AISLIC's motion on contractual claims due to policy exclusions while denying it on tort claims. The rulings rested on analysis of policy language, lack of genuine factual disputes under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, and separation of contract versus tort allegations.

business & regulatoryhealthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

In Scottsdale Insurance v. Dorman, an insurance company sued several defendants under the federal RICO statute, alleging they fraudulently obtained a $45,000 payout from a general liability policy by misrepresenting an injured worker's employment status to avoid a workers' compensation exclusion. The defendants moved to dismiss the RICO claim for insufficient pleading and to strike an amended RICO statement, while also seeking sanctions. The court denied the motion to strike after granting leave to amend, dismissed the RICO claim because the allegations failed to show a pattern of racketeering activity involving multiple predicate acts posing a threat of continued criminal conduct, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law fraud claim, dismissing it without prejudice.

criminal lawprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerns whether the Community-Based Mitigation Committee (CBMC), formed to advise the Army Corps of Engineers on mitigating social and cultural impacts of an Industrial Canal lock modernization project in New Orleans, qualifies as an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Plaintiffs, including neighborhood associations, argued that the Corps established or utilized the CBMC pursuant to congressional directives and sought to enforce FACA's procedural requirements via a preliminary injunction. The Corps countered that it neither established nor utilized the committee, which was instead facilitated by a private contractor, and moved for summary judgment. The court denied both motions, applying D.C. Circuit precedents on FACA's "establish" and "utilize" standards and finding that material issues remained regarding the Corps' involvement and the committee's structure.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

In Clancy v. Employers Health Insurance Co., plaintiff Shawn Clancy moved for a new trial after the court granted summary judgment to defendant EHIC, dismissing her claims for health insurance benefits, clarification of rights, and bad faith damages under Louisiana law. The court treated the motion as a Rule 59(e) request to alter or amend the judgment and denied it, holding that Clancy failed to show manifest error of law or fact, newly discovered evidence, manifest injustice, or a change in controlling law. The ruling reaffirmed that ERISA preempts the state claims because they conflict with ERISA's exclusive remedial scheme under section 502(a) and because Louisiana Revised Statute 22:657 is not saved from preemption, even after considering arguments based on UNUM Life Insurance Co. v. Ward and related precedents.

healthcarefederal powerprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves claims by Northern King Shipping and Sun Enterprises for indemnity and contribution from MAPCO, Mustang Services, and Linda Jacobs after a prior judgment held the plaintiffs liable under the Death on the High Seas Act and maritime law for the death of Patrick Jacobs aboard their vessel. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants negligently hired or permitted Jacobs, who had a known serious liver condition, to serve as a loss control representative on the chartered voyage, contributing to his death. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and for summary judgment, finding that the prior ruling attributed fault solely to the plaintiffs' crew and that the decedent's physical condition was irrelevant to that liability determination. It also denied the defendants' Rule 11 motions for sanctions, concluding the claims had some evidentiary support and were not filed in bad faith.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved plaintiff Shawn Clancy seeking additional medical benefits, penalties, and a declaratory judgment under Louisiana insurance statutes from her employer-sponsored group health policy with EHIC following an auto accident, along with class certification for other policyholders alleging improper coordination of benefits with a separate auto policy and improper subrogation demands. EHIC removed the case to federal court and moved for summary judgment, arguing the policy was governed by ERISA. The court granted EHIC's summary judgment motion, dismissed all claims, and denied class certification along with related discovery motions. It reasoned that the plan qualified as an ERISA employee welfare benefit plan, ERISA preempted the state-law claims, and Clancy had failed to exhaust the policy's internal administrative remedies before filing suit.

healthcarefederal powerprocedure

In Ahrens v. TPLC, Inc., Louisiana residents sued the manufacturer of allegedly defective pacemaker leads and its local sales representative in state court for damages under Louisiana redhibition law. Defendants removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds, arguing the non-diverse sales representative had been fraudulently joined because it had no ownership interest in the leads and thus could not be liable as a seller. The court denied the motion to remand, concluding that redhibition actions require a buyer-seller relationship in which the defendant transferred ownership of the product, which the sales representative had not done, and that no other viable claim existed against it at the time of removal.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved a fair housing organization's claims against entities connected to a New Orleans timeshare resort, alleging that field marketing representatives discriminated by refusing to show units to African-American, immigrant, certain religious or cultural, disabled, pregnant, or family-with-young-children prospects, in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act, the Louisiana Open Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982, and the Thirteenth Amendment. The court dismissed the trade name 'Quarter House' as an improper defendant and granted summary judgment to the Owners’ Association because it played no role in sales or marketing; it also dismissed the Thirteenth Amendment claim but denied dismissal of the §§ 1981/1982 claims and denied summary judgment to Oak Ridge Park, Inc., which paid the marketers. Core reasoning included that timeshare units qualify as 'dwellings' under the FHA because owners hold property rights including the ability to return and use the units, that a minor summons naming error caused no prejudice, and that the Association's lack of involvement in marketing warranted its dismissal from the discrimination claims.

civil rightspropertyprocedure

This case arose from a 1996 rupture of a Marathon pipeline in Louisiana that released hundreds of thousands of gallons of gasoline, which plaintiffs attributed to excavation work by LaRoche on an adjacent pipeline. Marathon Pipe Line and Marathon Oil sued LaRoche under the Oil Pollution Act seeking a declaratory judgment that LaRoche was the responsible party, subrogation rights, contribution, and state-law damages. LaRoche moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, claiming the plaintiffs had not first presented their claims to the responsible party as required by OPA section 2713. The court denied the motion, holding that section 2713's presentation requirement applies only to claims brought against a responsible party and does not govern claims brought by a responsible party against an alleged sole-cause third party, based on the statute's text, structure, and related provisions.

environmentprocedure

In Royal Insurance v. Smatco Industries Inc., the plaintiff insurer sought damages for injuries caused by an allegedly defective winch, claiming that the defendant Smatco Industries Inc. was liable as a corporate successor to the original manufacturer Smatco, Inc. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting that it could not be held responsible because the assets had been acquired through bankruptcy sales rather than a direct transfer and that operations had not been continuous. The court denied the motion under general maritime law, applying principles of successor liability that focus on continuity of the business identity, including shared management by the same key personnel, overlapping employees, use of the same product line name and trademarks, and operation from the same plant. The court found these factors sufficient to impose liability despite the bankruptcy context and gaps in operations.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved a motion by Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s to reconsider a prior ruling on insurance coverage under a policy issued to H.J. Gauthier Rental Service, Inc., with Chevron Oil Service Co. listed as an additional assured, in connection with a time charter agreement and claims for personal injury arising from cargo handling. The court had previously held that the policy provided coverage to Gauthier for its contractual indemnity obligations to Chevron and addressed related issues of defense duties and the deletion of an “as owner” clause. On reconsideration, the Underwriters highlighted previously unconsidered policy provisions, including clauses in the SP-23 form that exclude coverage for claims arising under contracts of indemnity between the assured and a subcontractor, as well as limiting liability to that imposed by law absent contract. The court granted the motion in part, vacating its earlier determination and holding that Gauthier is not entitled to contractual indemnity insurance under the policy as a matter of law, while denying reconsideration on all other issues.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a shipping company's bankruptcy filing and a jurisdictional dispute over its sole asset, a vessel, after secured creditors initiated foreclosure proceedings in admiralty court following the lifting of the automatic stay. The bankruptcy court had approved attorney fees as administrative expenses and considered a motion to grant them priority lien status against the vessel sale proceeds under 11 U.S.C. § 506(c), but denied the motion on the merits after concluding it had jurisdiction. On appeal, the district court affirmed the denial, holding that the admiralty court's exercise of in rem jurisdiction over the vessel and proceeds divested the bankruptcy court of authority, making the motion improper despite the initial retention of jurisdiction after the stay was modified.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved a former employee's claim that his termination by Lafourche Communications violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. The employer moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case because he was not disabled, was not a qualified individual, and was barred from recovery under the after-acquired evidence doctrine due to misrepresentations on his employment application. The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the plaintiff's supervisor regarded him as having a disability that substantially limited a major life activity, whether reasonable accommodations existed that would allow him to perform essential job functions such as attendance, and whether the employer would have hired or retained him had the misrepresentations been known at the time.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case concerned Unocal's counterclaim seeking restitution from LL&E for a share of a 1985 settlement Unocal paid to the Department of Energy for crude oil overcharges under federal price control statutes. Unocal moved for a ruling that federal common law applied to the claim, while LL&E argued that state law governed under recent Supreme Court precedent. The court held that federal common law applies because the claim implicates uniquely federal interests in enforcing the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970 and the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973, creating a cause of action for restitution under precedents such as the operator liability doctrine; however, the operator is not automatically entitled to recovery and affirmative defenses remain available. The court further ruled that the claim is not subject to state statutes of limitations.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case involves the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), acting as receiver for failed savings institutions, seeking to enforce continuing guarantee agreements against defendants Gary J. Rouse, Sandra T. Rouse, and Glen A. Slavich to recover deficiencies on loans made to Holiday Tract Development, Inc. and G.J. Rouse Company after the principal obligors defaulted and collateral was sold. The FDIC also moved for default judgment against defendant Alvin J. Faucheux, Jr., who had filed for bankruptcy. The court denied the default judgment motion and dismissed the claim against Faucheux due to his bankruptcy discharge but granted the FDIC's motion for summary judgment against the remaining defendants. It found no genuine issues of material fact regarding the validity of the guarantees or the amounts owed, and rejected the defendants' affirmative defenses, including claims that a dation en paiement had extinguished the obligations, as unsupported by evidence and failing as a matter of law under applicable standards.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure