Dee D. Drell

This case involves employers challenging new prevailing wage regulations for the federal H-2B visa program, which allows temporary non-agricultural foreign workers when domestic labor is unavailable. The regulations stemmed from prior litigation in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where a court had ordered the Department of Labor to revise wage calculation methods and effective dates. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction in the Western District of Louisiana to block the September 30, 2011 effective date, while intervenor worker organizations and the DOL moved to dismiss or transfer venue. The court granted the transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), finding the Eastern District of Pennsylvania a more convenient forum because the new rules resulted directly from its orders, substantial events occurred there, and comity required avoiding potential conflicting rulings. It denied the injunction motion without prejudice and denied dismissal.

immigrationlabor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a lawsuit by Woody and Mary Bilyeu against attorney David Johanson, his law firm, and related entities, alleging fraud in connection with a failed tax avoidance strategy involving an offshore corporation and reinvestment of proceeds from the sale of company shares to ESOPs. The defendants moved to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration under clauses in prior Attorney-Client Fee Agreements between the law firm and the plaintiffs' companies (Comm-Craft and DirecTech), which covered ESOP and liquidity services, even though the Bilyeus were not individual signatories and no new agreement governed the later personal advice. The court denied the motion, holding that arbitration is strictly a matter of consent under the FAA and state contract principles, the claims arose from separate individual representation after the corporate work concluded, and doctrines such as equitable estoppel did not bind the nonsignatory plaintiffs to the existing arbitration provisions.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved Danny Metoyer, a former probationary station agent for American Eagle Airlines at Alexandria International Airport, who sued the airline after his termination for using profane and disrespectful language toward coworkers. Metoyer asserted a Title VII claim for reverse gender discrimination, along with state-law claims for defamation and negligent infliction of emotional distress stemming from events after his firing, including an arrest for trespass. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims with prejudice. On the discrimination claim, the court found no evidence that gender motivated the termination, noting that the airline employed many male agents, had documented the plaintiff's repeated misconduct during his short probationary period, and would have fired him based on his undisclosed prior assault conviction alone. The defamation and emotional-distress claims failed because the plaintiff could not establish falsity, publication of defamatory statements, or the requisite severe emotional harm.

labor & employmentcivil rightstorts & liability

The case involved a Louisiana landowner who joined a pool of property owners negotiating to lease mineral rights on their land to XTO Energy through a broker from T.S. Dudley Land Company. The plaintiff alleged that email exchanges in July 2008 formed a binding contract for a three-year lease at $13,000 per acre with a 25% royalty and a two-year option, or alternatively supported claims for promissory estoppel and fraud when XTO later declined to proceed due to lack of upper management approval for packages over $3 million. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims with prejudice. It reasoned that the emails did not amount to a definite offer and unqualified acceptance under Louisiana law, that any reliance was unreasonable given the ongoing negotiations and explicit need for further approvals, and that there was no evidence of intent to deceive.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case was an appeal by Capital One from a bankruptcy court order granting partial summary judgment to the City of Alexandria in a dispute over ownership of land and improvements on a long-term leased hotel property, where the bankrupt lessee had granted Capital One a mortgage on its interest. The district court affirmed that the City holds fee ownership of both the land and the improvements constructed under the lease, and upheld the bankruptcy court's order deeming the lease rejected. It vacated the bankruptcy court's ruling that rejection automatically terminated the lease and remanded for further record development on termination and any surviving mortgage rights. The core reasoning rested on the lease terms, Louisiana property law distinguishing lessee interests from fee ownership, and bankruptcy code provisions on lease rejection without automatic termination.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a motion for partial summary judgment filed by the City of Alexandria in litigation originally brought against Cleco Corp., its electrical utility provider, over alleged mismanagement. After the City settled with Cleco, it terminated the contingency fee contract of intervening attorney Bridgett Brown, who had been retained by ordinance to handle the claims; Brown then intervened seeking her fees and costs under the contract. The court granted the motion, holding that the city attorney had authority under the City Charter to terminate Brown's representation. The core reasoning was that the Charter designates the city attorney as the City's chief legal adviser with managerial control over contracted attorneys, consistent with the established principle that clients may discharge their lawyers at any time.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In this case, attorney Bridgett Brown intervened in a lawsuit between the City of Alexandria and its electrical utility provider Cleco, alleging that the newly elected mayor and city attorney tortiously interfered with her contingent fee contract for legal services by terminating her representation and breaching fiduciary duties. The intervenor defendants moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the tortious interference claims. The court granted the motion and adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation in part, holding that Louisiana law does not recognize a cause of action for tortious interference with a legal services contract in these circumstances. The decision rested on precedents limiting such claims to narrow corporate officer contexts under 9 to 5 Fashions, Inc. v. Spurney and subsequent cases rejecting extensions to attorney-client fee arrangements.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a defamation lawsuit filed by Wesley Dalton Medford against Oday Lavergne, stemming from statements Lavergne allegedly made about Medford's management of PIVoD Technologies. Lavergne filed a third-party claim against his insurer, State Farm, seeking defense and indemnity under multiple policies, prompting State Farm's motion for summary judgment on coverage issues. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, applying Louisiana insurance law to interpret policy provisions, including intentional act exclusions, and finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Lavergne's statements were intended to cause harm. The analysis focused on the plain language of the policies, the allegations in the complaint, and Lavergne's affirmative defenses and counterclaims asserting truth and lack of intent.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerns a challenge by the Independent Turtle Farmers of Louisiana to the FDA's 1975 regulation banning the commercial sale of live turtles with shells under four inches (and viable eggs) as pets, enacted to reduce salmonellosis risks especially to children. The plaintiffs petitioned to lift or amend the ban citing new scientific methods to reduce salmonella in turtles, and both sides filed cross-motions for summary judgment along with motions to supplement the administrative record. The court granted the defendants' record supplement motion fully and the plaintiffs' in part; it also granted in part and denied in part each summary judgment motion. The core reasoning centered on Administrative Procedure Act review, finding the FDA's interpretation of the ban reasonable in some respects but questioning whether the agency had adequately explained its decision or applied standards evenhandedly given advances in science and comparisons to other pets or products.

business & regulatory

This case involved a civil lawsuit under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) in which plaintiff Clyde Cody Bailey, Jr. alleged that defendant Danny Daniels, a deputy sheriff acting in his personal capacity while deer hunting, improperly obtained Bailey’s name and other personal information from motor vehicle records after a confrontation over a suspected stolen hunting dog and tracking collar. The court denied Bailey’s motion for summary judgment and granted Daniels’s cross-motion, dismissing the claims. The core reasoning was that Daniels’s use of the license plate information fell within the DPPA’s exception for obtaining data in connection with the investigation of a crime (here, possible theft), and that no further use or disclosure of the information occurred after Bailey contacted law enforcement himself. The court also noted that the DPPA’s primary purpose was to prevent bulk distribution of DMV data rather than to address this kind of individual investigative use.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

In this case, former Wal-Mart employee Robert Harvey sued the company alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act for failure to restore him to his position after a leave of absence to care for his daughter, as well as disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Louisiana's parallel statute based on his back condition and requests for accommodations such as limits on lifting, bending, and standing. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the FMLA claim, finding no genuine issue of material fact that Harvey was not an eligible employee under the statute because he had not worked the required hours in the preceding 12 months. The court denied summary judgment on the ADA and LEDL claims, determining that there were factual disputes regarding whether Harvey's impairment substantially limited major life activities of lifting, bending, and standing, though it expressed reservations about the strength of those claims.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves a pro se prisoner plaintiff who filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action against prison wardens, a corrections corporation, and medical staff, alleging denial of adequate medical care for chronic rectal bleeding and hemorrhoids while incarcerated, including refusal of recommended surgery and colonoscopies due to cost concerns, incorrect medications, and threats of discipline. The defendants filed a second motion for summary judgment after an earlier one was denied. The district court denied the motion, adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and finding genuine issues of material fact as to whether the defendants were deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff's serious medical needs, based on evidence of ineffective treatment, cancellations of procedures, and awareness of the condition over an extended period. The plaintiff's request for injunctive relief was noted as moot due to later surgery.

civil rightscriminal lawhealthcare

Ethel Louise Hobbs applied for supplemental security income benefits, alleging disability from arthritis in her knees, fingers, and shoulders as well as high blood pressure, with an onset date in 2000. An ALJ determined that Hobbs had severe impairments but retained the residual functional capacity for the full range of light work and thus was not disabled under the Medical-Vocational Guidelines. After the Appeals Council declined review, making the ALJ's decision final, Hobbs sought judicial review, contending that the ALJ failed to properly assess the severity of all her impairments at steps 2 through 5 of the sequential evaluation. The court, reviewing the record for substantial evidence and legal error under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), concluded that the ALJ had not adequately considered all medically determinable impairments, such as shoulder and foot conditions, rendering the RFC finding unsupported. Accordingly, the court vacated the Commissioner's decision and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings.

labor & employmenthealthcare

The case involved a Louisiana farming operation and a hunter challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's determination that post-Hurricane Gustav discing of unharvestable crops on 23,000 acres created "baited" areas under federal migratory bird regulations, leading to a ban on waterfowl hunting in the "zone of influence" and cancellation of hunting leases. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction, declaratory relief, and a Fifth Amendment takings claim, arguing the discing was a normal agricultural practice required by leases and insurance. The court denied the injunction and declaratory relief after an evidentiary hearing, concluding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act because the agency's enforcement decision was not reviewable final action, while allowing the takings claim to proceed temporarily.

environmentfederal powerpropertyprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Virgile Carpenter sued Wal-Mart Louisiana, L.L.C., alleging that the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by framing her for theft and terminating her employment because of her medical conditions, including lupus, fibromyalgia, and osteoarthritis. Wal-Mart moved for summary judgment, contending that Carpenter was not disabled under the ADA, that she had in fact attempted to steal merchandise, and that she was fired solely for that misconduct rather than any disability. The court granted the motion after reviewing the record under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, finding no genuine dispute of material fact that the termination was based on the theft incident. The court further noted that Carpenter's complaint raised only an ADA claim, which had been properly exhausted before the EEOC, but that the evidence failed to support a prima facie case of disability discrimination or show that Wal-Mart's stated reason was pretextual.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves consolidated admiralty limitation of liability actions filed in federal court after the 2001 drowning death of James King, an assistant deckhand employed by Vidalia Dock & Storage Company, who slipped from a barge loaded with AgLime while working on the Mississippi River. King's widow brought state-court claims under the Jones Act and general maritime law against multiple parties including the barge owner pro hac vice (Luhr Bros.), the loading company (Tower Rock), and related entities (Two-J Ranch and VD&S), prompting the vessel owners to seek exoneration or limitation of liability. The district court, after reviewing reports and recommendations on three summary judgment motions plus related motions to dismiss cross-claims and to remand, granted in part and denied in part each summary judgment motion while denying the motion to dismiss and the motion to lift the stay and remand. The core reasoning rested on an independent review of the undisputed facts regarding vessel ownership, seaman status, negligence, and unseaworthiness claims, with modifications to the magistrate judge's findings on issues such as contributory negligence, indemnity, and the applicability of limitation statutes.

torts & liabilityprocedurelabor & employment

This case concerned the distribution of assets in the Turner Hunt Lewis Trust, which was established by court-appointed curators for an interdicted individual who died intestate days after its creation in 2002. The trustees filed a Rule 22 interpleader action to determine title under Louisiana law amid competing claims from potential intestate heirs and the trust's own disposition provisions, with the United States asserting an interest tied to tax liabilities. The court granted summary judgment to defendants Elizabeth Hunt Curnes, Ellen Hunt Flowers, Houston Bunker Hunt, and Mary Hunt Huddleston, while denying the United States' motion, ruling that the trustees must distribute assets per the trust instrument. The core reasoning was that Louisiana law permits curators to place an interdict's property in trust with post-termination disposition terms, the state court had approved the trust without error, and no will or other evidence of contrary intent existed to override those terms.

propertyfamily lawproceduretaxes

This case involved a Title VII lawsuit by former employee Katy Hines against her employer, Grand Casino, alleging sexual harassment by her supervisor from 1994 until her constructive discharge in 1999, including both quid pro quo and hostile work environment claims. After a jury trial, the plaintiff prevailed and was awarded $150,000 in compensatory damages and $200,000 in punitive damages. The court denied the defendant's motions for a new trial and for judgment as a matter of law, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's liability verdict under the prima facie case requirements and standards from cases like Ellerth and Faragher. However, the court granted the motion to remit the judgment, concluding that the damage awards were inconsistent with the evidence and applicable law.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved DIRECTV suing Marc Robson under federal statutes (47 U.S.C. § 605 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511, 2520) for allegedly purchasing and possessing devices like unloopers and an emulator to intercept and decrypt its satellite television signals without authorization. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment after reviewing the evidence from raids, purchases, and circumstantial links, and dismissed the suit with prejudice. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff failed to present specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial, as mere possession of the equipment did not sufficiently support inferences of illegal use or modification under the statutes, and the defendant provided evidence of legitimate professional reasons for ownership. Summary judgment standards require more than allegations to survive when the moving party meets its burden.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In this consolidated case, Dresser, Inc. sought a federal declaratory judgment on whether its dispute resolution program required former employee Robert Lowry to arbitrate his age discrimination claims, while Lowry filed a parallel state-court suit under Louisiana age discrimination statutes against Dresser and two individual Louisiana managers. The federal court addressed motions concerning remand of the removed state action, abstention from the declaratory judgment action, and compulsion of arbitration. The court granted remand, finding that the individual defendants were not fraudulently joined because Louisiana law was ambiguous on whether individuals could be liable for aiding and abetting an employer's discrimination after the 1997 statutory amendments. It also granted abstention on the declaratory action due to unresolved state-law issues and the absence of federal questions, and denied the arbitration motion as moot.

labor & employmentprocedure