Moon Landrieu

In this case, attorney James M. Williams and his law firms filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination that they had not committed legal malpractice while representing Nicholas Manzella in a federal racial discrimination suit against UPS that was dismissed on summary judgment and whose appeal was later dismissed for failure to file a timely brief. Manzella had filed a separate malpractice suit and raised exceptions to the declaratory action, which the trial court denied before granting summary judgment to the attorneys on the ground that Manzella could not establish a prima facie case of malpractice. The appellate court examined the appropriateness of using a declaratory judgment proceeding in this tort setting, noting concerns about due process, piecemeal litigation, and the policy goals of the Declaratory Judgment Act.

proceduretorts & liability

In this case, engineer David C. Flettrich sued Touro Infirmary and its law firm Sher Garner for unpaid fees of nearly $99,000 after providing expert consulting services in Touro's litigation over design defects in a nursing home project. Flettrich had been retained through the law firm, which directed his work and instructed him to bill Touro, and he had performed similar services for the firm on prior matters. The trial court granted summary judgment to the law firm, finding it was a disclosed agent that did not bind itself personally or exceed its authority. On appeal, the Louisiana Court of Appeal reversed, holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the firm exceeded the scope of its agency authority from Touro, particularly given the limited payment made and the firm's prior use of Flettrich's services, and remanded for further proceedings.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved plaintiff Ella Bradstreet's suit against Escrow Services, Inc. (ESI), the administrator of an Installment Option Agreement for the purchase of property in New Orleans, after the seller terminated the contract following the plaintiff's payment defaults. Bradstreet alleged defects in the agreement's preparation and administration, including failures to register it as a bond for deed, use a licensed escrow agent, and obtain required mortgage guarantees. The trial court sustained ESI's exception of prematurity and dismissed the suit in favor of arbitration; the appellate court affirmed. The core reasoning was that the agreement contained an express arbitration clause requiring all controversies among the owner, purchaser, and administrator to be resolved through binding arbitration, thereby precluding judicial proceedings until that process was followed.

propertyprocedure

The case involved an appeal by New Orleans Police Officer Tamara Grant challenging a Civil Service Commission decision that upheld her 120-day suspension and termination by the NOPD. Grant had been disciplined for committing battery on two fellow officers, engaging in unprofessional conduct, misrepresenting facts in an internal investigation, and obstructing another officer's attempt to arrest her former fiancé based on outstanding warrants. The incident occurred in a police station parking lot when Grant physically interfered, used profanity, and threatened officers while they detained the suspect. The court reviewed the record and found sufficient evidence supported the CSC's conclusions that the violations occurred and that the penalties were appropriate under departmental rules on battery, truthfulness, professionalism, and obstructing an officer.

criminal lawlabor & employment

The case involved Captain Phillip J. Krupp's appeal of his termination by the New Orleans Department of Fire after a random drug test returned positive for cocaine metabolites. Krupp challenged the Civil Service Commission's decision upholding the termination, arguing flaws in the urine collection process, including failure to follow all SAMHSA guidelines on retaining samples and documenting observers, which he claimed broke the chain of custody. The court affirmed the Commission's ruling, finding that the procedural deviations were not fatal to the evidence and that testimony supported the conclusion Krupp had attempted to alter his initial sample. The positive test result provided legal cause for termination under the department's substance abuse policy, and the decision was neither arbitrary nor an abuse of discretion.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned claims by Ronald and Paula Lutz, Jordan Operations, Inc., and Lutz Oil & Gas, LLC against attorney Francis Jay Lobrano and his firm for alleged negligent legal advice in the 2003 acquisition of an oil and gas leasehold interest from Pride Energy Company. The trial court granted the Lobrano defendants' exception of no right of action and dismissed the claims of the Lutzes and Jordan with prejudice, allowing only Lutz Oil's claims to continue. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the dismissed plaintiffs had a right of action because they had established an attorney-client relationship with Lobrano before Lutz Oil was formed and had alleged distinct personal losses from the malpractice. The court reasoned that the attorney-client relationship turns on the client's subjective belief and that the petition sufficiently stated a cause of action for legal malpractice with resulting damages to those plaintiffs.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryproperty

The case involved homeowners Louis and Joan Savoy suing their insurer State Farm, its agent Ben Guillory, and the agent's errors and omissions insurer over alleged failures to increase flood policy limits before Hurricane Katrina, along with bad-faith claims under Louisiana statutes for handling a homeowner's policy claim. After settling the homeowner's policy claims with State Farm in federal court, which later dismissed the remaining claims for lack of jurisdiction, the Savoys refiled in state court. The trial court granted summary judgment to State Farm, finding the agent was an independent contractor, and dismissed claims against the agent and his insurer on exceptions of peremption and no cause of action. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the claims against the agent were perempted under La. R.S. 9:5606 because the state suit was filed after the one-year peremptive period had expired, with no valid tolling from the federal proceedings due to jurisdictional limits, and thus no vicarious liability could attach to State Farm.

propertyproceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involved Randolph Scott, a former permanent civil service employee of the City of New Orleans Department of Housing and Neighborhood Development, who was laid off in October 2005 as part of a large-scale post-Hurricane Katrina reduction of over 2,900 city employees. Scott filed an appeal with the Civil Service Commission more than nine months later, arguing that the Commission had not properly notified him of his appellate rights and that the filing deadline did not begin until such notice was provided, citing a prior court decision on jurisdiction. The Commission dismissed the appeal as untimely under its Rule II, Section 4.3, which requires appeals to be filed within 30 calendar days of the termination letter. The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, holding that the prior decision addressed only subject-matter jurisdiction and did not alter the 30-day deadline or impose additional notice requirements, and that the termination letter itself sufficed to start the appeal period.

labor & employmentprocedure

Jeremy Colbert was indicted for the second degree murder of Jonathan Jefferson and the attempted second degree kidnapping of Jennifer Alexander after a shooting incident in an apartment complex parking lot. A jury convicted him of the lesser offense of manslaughter and guilty as charged of attempted second degree kidnapping, resulting in concurrent sentences of forty years and twenty years at hard labor. On appeal, Colbert raised issues including sufficiency of the evidence, admissibility of other crimes evidence involving prior incidents with Alexander, jury instructions, and excessiveness of the sentences. The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding the evidence sufficient to support the verdicts, no error in the evidentiary and instructional rulings, and the sentences justified given the facts of the crimes.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved former permanent civil service employees of the New Orleans Aviation Board who were laid off after Hurricane Katrina and appealed to the Civil Service Commission of New Orleans, arguing that the layoffs violated standard ranking and procedural rules under Civil Service Rule XII. The Commission had authorized emergency suspensions of certain rules and allowed a process to retain only essential employees based on department recommendations rather than individual rankings, due to the lack of resources and the city's financial crisis. The plaintiffs sought reinstatement through a writ of mandamus in district court, but their claims were dismissed. The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, affirmed the Commission's decision, finding that the Personnel Director had authority under Rule XII, Section 5.6, to implement the blanket layoff in the emergency context and that the process complied with applicable rules.

labor & employment

In State v. Fournette, the defendants were charged with possession of cocaine, possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine after police observed drugs and a gun through a gap in the doors of a closed car wash, entered the building without a warrant, and later obtained a search warrant to seize additional evidence. The trial court denied the defendants' motions to suppress the evidence, and a jury convicted them on all counts, resulting in concurrent thirty-year sentences. On appeal, the court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that although the initial entry may have been unlawful, the inevitable discovery doctrine applied because the search warrant was supported by probable cause from the officers' lawful observations through the gap, independent of the entry.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, a nine-year-old boy was struck by a vehicle while walking along a highway in Louisiana that was undergoing resurfacing and expansion, leading to serious injuries. The plaintiffs sued the driver, insurers, and the State through the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD), alleging the construction site was unreasonably dangerous due to lack of markings and barriers. A jury found the DOTD 20% at fault, and the trial court entered judgments accordingly, including damage awards and costs. On appeal, the DOTD challenged procedural rulings, fault allocation, damage amounts, and costs. The Court of Appeal reviewed the record and affirmed the judgments in all respects, finding no errors by the trial court.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Regina R. Waldrop, who was charged with second degree murder and obstruction of justice after stabbing her housemate during an altercation and attempting to clean up the scene. She pled guilty to the reduced charge of manslaughter and to obstruction of justice, and the trial court sentenced her to 22 years and 10 years to run concurrently after considering a pre-sentence investigation and psychiatric evaluations showing her history of mental illness. Waldrop appealed, arguing the sentences were excessive in light of mitigating factors including her bipolar disorder, lack of criminal history, and the victim's provocation. The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding that the trial court had complied with La.C.Cr.P. art. 894.1, had not abused its discretion, and that the sentences were not unconstitutionally excessive based on the circumstances and comparisons to similar cases.

criminal lawprocedure

In this Louisiana appellate case arising from a 1991 rear-end auto collision, plaintiff Vana Andrews sued driver Margaret Dufour, her insurer, and Ford Motor Company after her 1976 Ford Granada's gas tank ruptured, causing a fire that burned over 35% of her body; Andrews claimed the tank design was defective, while Ford contested liability and an intervenor sought reimbursement for medical costs. The jury returned a verdict on liability and damages, but the trial court granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) that altered those findings, leading to appeals by Andrews and Ford. The Court of Appeal reversed the JNOV in part as to liability, finding the evidence insufficient to show the gas tank was unreasonably dangerous under 1976 design standards and that the jury's allocation of no fault to Ford should stand, affirmed the JNOV on damages, and amended the fault percentages between Andrews and Dufour based on the record of witness accounts and vehicle conditions.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Koty J. Landry, who was charged with second-degree battery after punching Raymond Rojas outside a Louisiana bar on August 2, 2002, causing injuries including a broken jaw that required wiring and tooth removal. A jury convicted Landry, and the trial court sentenced him to four years at hard labor, suspended, with four years of active probation, one year inactive, plus conditions such as paying a fine, restitution of nearly $7,000, completing alcohol and anger management programs, and serving 30 days in custody when onshore. On appeal, the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, affirmed the conviction and sentence after reviewing the record for sufficiency of evidence, proper jury instructions on self-defense and lesser included offenses, and compliance with sentencing guidelines under La.C.Cr.P. art. 894.1, finding no abuse of discretion or errors warranting reversal.

criminal law

Shareholders of Production Supply Company sued the CEO of Transtar Metals and related parties in Louisiana court, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, detrimental reliance, and breach of contract stemming from a merger, additional investments, and unpaid commissions under a consulting agreement. The trial court sustained the defendants' exceptions of improper venue and lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on forum selection clauses in the Merger Agreement and Consulting Agreement that designated New York courts as exclusive. On appeal, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that the clauses were enforceable, the consulting agreement did not qualify as an employment contract under La. R.S. 23:921(A)(2) so as to void the forum provision, and the plaintiffs' claims arose from or related to the agreements governed by New York law and venue.

business & regulatoryprocedurelabor & employment

In Kops v. Lee, a former partner in a Louisiana law firm sued his ex-partners and successor firm after being terminated, seeking a declaratory judgment that the written partnership agreement was an absolute nullity along with an accounting and payment for his full ownership interest rather than just his capital account. The plaintiff argued the agreement violated Rule 5.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct and La. R.S. 23:921 governing non-competition agreements, rendering it unenforceable as against public policy. The trial court granted partial summary judgment dismissing those claims, and the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, affirmed after de novo review, holding that the agreement did not constitute an improper restriction under the cited authorities.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

The case involved Kyle M. Givens, charged with aggravated incest under Louisiana law for alleged sexual acts against his stepdaughter beginning when she was nine years old. A jury convicted him of the responsive verdict of attempted aggravated incest, after which he pleaded guilty to being a second felony offender and received a five-year hard labor sentence without probation or suspension. On appeal, the court conducted an independent review of the record, confirmed proper charging and trial procedures, found the evidence sufficient to prove the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, and identified no patent sentencing errors given the plea agreement and presumption of regularity. The conviction and sentence were affirmed, and appellate counsel's motion to withdraw was granted.

criminal lawfamily law

In this Louisiana case, homeowners sued multiple parties including Rimkus Consulting Group after their home suffered water damage and toxic mold growth following a hailstorm and roof repairs; State Farm had hired Rimkus to inspect for mold but Rimkus reported only to State Farm and not directly to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs alleged that Rimkus breached duties by failing to adequately assess the mold, warn them of the danger, and meet professional standards, which worsened the contamination. The trial court granted Rimkus's exception of no cause of action and dismissed the claims with prejudice. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Rimkus owed no legal duty to the plaintiffs under negligence principles or as third-party beneficiaries via stipulation pour autrui in the State Farm contract, and that further amendment of the petition would be futile. The court emphasized that the inspection relationship alone did not create the required legal obligation.

proceduretorts & liability

In Engles v. City of New Orleans, Harold Engle sued the City and the Sewerage and Water Board for injuries from a 1998 bicycle accident at an intersection, alleging the defendants negligently failed to maintain the street under theories of negligence, strict liability, and premises liability after the bike hit a ridge or depression. The trial court found both defendants 50% at fault, awarded Engle over $3 million in damages including for future lost wages and general damages, and awarded his wife $100,000 for loss of consortium. On appeal, the Court of Appeal determined that only the City had custody and notice of the defect under La. R.S. 9:2800, held the plaintiff and Sewerage and Water Board not at fault, limited general damages to the $500,000 statutory cap on public entity liability, reversed the consortium award because it was derivative and extinguished by the cap, and affirmed the future lost wages award.

torts & liability