This case involves Austin Westbrook's lawsuit against his former employers, Pike Electric, LLC and related entities, following his resignation in January 2011. Westbrook alleged claims under Louisiana law for unpaid wages, breach of an employment contract regarding severance and benefits, declaratory judgment on unenforceable non-compete and non-solicitation provisions, breach of implied good faith, conversion, and unjust enrichment. The defendants removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds and moved to dismiss or transfer venue to Delaware based on a forum selection clause in the employment agreement, as well as to dismiss certain claims under Rule 12(b)(6). The court denied the motion to dismiss the breach of implied good faith claim but granted dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim, reasoning that Louisiana law precludes such a claim when alternative remedies like contract or wage claims are available. The opinion also references analysis of the choice-of-law and venue issues tied to the contract.
The case involved a paramedic, Tommy Rogers, who alleged injuries sustained when jumping from a gangplank onto the deck of a vessel owned by Coastal Towing to respond to the captain's heart attack emergency on December 31, 2007. Rogers sued under general maritime law for damages including pain, lost income, and medical expenses, prompting Coastal's motion for summary judgment on grounds that Louisiana's Professional Rescuer’s Doctrine barred recovery by emergency personnel and could supplement admiralty law. The court denied the motion after confirming admiralty jurisdiction based on maritime locus and nexus. It held that federal general maritime law preempts the state doctrine, as the latter conflicts with the vessel owner's duty of reasonable care to lawful visitors aboard and the maritime rule of comparative fault, which rejects assumption of risk as a complete bar to recovery. The reasoning emphasized that state law may not supplement maritime law where it prejudices its characteristic features or uniformity.
This case involved six plaintiffs suing the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for damages from flooding after Hurricane Katrina, alleging negligence by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the maintenance and operation of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet navigational channel. The court conducted a bench trial and addressed prior motions regarding subject-matter jurisdiction and potential immunity under the Flood Control Act of 1928. It determined that the Flood Control Act did not bar the claims because the alleged damages stemmed from the Corps' activities on a navigational channel rather than a flood control project, allowing segregation of causes under precedents like Central Green and Graci. The court further concluded that certain operational and maintenance decisions were not protected discretionary policy choices but instead involved negligent safety assessments, such as failures in environmental impact analyses related to erosion and storm surge. As a result, the court proceeded to evaluate liability and damages based on the evidence presented.
This case concerns allegations that the Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans (SWB) was negligent in its handling of the 17th Street Canal, contributing to levee breaches during Hurricane Katrina. Plaintiffs claimed SWB failed in designing and constructing the levee and floodwall, rejecting certain plans, and in dredging operations that compromised safety. The court granted summary judgment in part, dismissing claims related to levee design and construction because SWB lacked statutory responsibility for the levee, which fell to other entities like the Corps of Engineers. It denied summary judgment on the dredging negligence claims, finding factual issues regarding whether SWB's actions were discretionary policy decisions entitled to immunity or merely operational.
The case concerns the State of Louisiana's class action against numerous property and casualty insurers to recover over eight billion dollars in Road Home program grants paid to homeowners for hurricane damage, where recipients had assigned their rights to duplicate insurance payments back to the State via subrogation agreements. The insurers moved to dismiss the claims, arguing lack of valid subrogation or assignment under Louisiana law, while the State moved to sever its claims and remand them to state court. The court denied the motion to sever and remand, holding that federal jurisdiction was proper under the Class Action Fairness Act and that the State had waived sovereign immunity. It granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, allowing claims based on conventional subrogation, assignment, and certain statutory provisions to proceed while rejecting others such as legal subrogation in this context.
This case concerns homeowners who purchased a Standard Flood Insurance Policy through an insurance agency but received reduced coverage limits after a premium calculation error was discovered shortly before Hurricane Katrina. The plaintiffs sued the insurer Fidelity seeking reformation of the policy to restore higher limits and sued the agency AAA for breach of fiduciary duty based on alleged misrepresentations and failure to follow up on premium recalculations. The court granted Fidelity's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims against it, reasoning that the policy terms were unambiguous and no grounds existed for reformation under federal flood insurance regulations. It denied AAA's motion for summary judgment, however, finding material factual disputes over whether the agency's statements induced the plaintiffs' reliance and whether the agency failed to exercise reasonable diligence in resolving the confusion it created.