Stanwood R. Duval jr

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.

labor & employmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

torts & liabilityprocedure

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.

torts & liabilityfederal powerenvironment

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.

torts & liability

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

propertytorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

Kristi Admire, a deputy with the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office, sued her supervisors alleging gender discrimination in disciplinary actions, multiple promotion decisions, termination from a training program, and a hostile work environment, plus retaliation for filing EEOC charges and a lawsuit. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part. It dismissed the retaliation, hostile work environment, disciplinary action, termination, and several promotion claims because the record showed no genuine issue of material fact that would allow a rational trier of fact to find for Admire under the governing discrimination and retaliation standards. The court allowed one failure-to-promote claim to proceed, finding a triable issue regarding whether male applicants with recent discipline were treated more favorably.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

In Douglas v. Gusman, a deaf inmate serving a burglary sentence filed a pro se § 1983 complaint against the Orleans Parish Sheriff, former sheriff, prison staff, and the OPP Medical Department, alleging denial of equal access to telephones via TTY device, closed-captioned television, interpreters for medical appointments, and retaliation including threats and placement in holding cells for complaining about these issues during two periods of incarceration at Orleans Parish Prison. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full, dismissing the complaint with prejudice as legally frivolous and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1). The core reasoning was that the plaintiff failed to allege facts showing personal involvement by the supervisory defendants in any constitutional violation or a causal connection to the alleged acts, that § 1983 does not impose vicarious liability, and that the OPP Medical Department is not a suable juridical entity under state law or § 1983.

civil rightscriminal law

This case involves an international child custody dispute in which plaintiff John Olagues alleges violations of his constitutional rights arising from the removal of his minor children from his custody in Louisiana and their return to their mother in California pursuant to court orders. The plaintiff had previously filed a nearly identical lawsuit in 2003, which resulted in a final judgment dismissing his claims. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss based on the doctrine of res judicata, finding that the parties were the same or in privity, the prior judgment was final on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction, and the claims arose from the same nucleus of operative facts. All motions for sanctions were denied.

family lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved a seaman who sued the United States under the Jones Act and unseaworthiness doctrine after suffering a severe diabetic attack aboard a government-owned merchant vessel, allegedly due to the absence of insulin and officers' failure to seek medical help, which led to the amputation of his forefeet. After a non-jury trial on liability and damages, the court entered judgment for the plaintiff on both claims. The decision rested on findings that the vessel operators breached the duty of ordinary care owed to the seaman and that the ship lacked adequate medical supplies and procedures for the plaintiff's condition.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityfederal power

This case arose from claims by New Orleans-area residents under the Federal Tort Claims Act that the Army Corps of Engineers negligently designed, constructed, maintained, and operated the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet navigational channel, causing or worsening flooding during Hurricane Katrina that damaged their property. The United States moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, asserting immunity under 33 U.S.C. § 702c of the Flood Control Act because the flooding involved levees and structures built as part of the separate Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project; a related motion sought to dismiss third-party claims in barge-damage suits on the same ground. The court denied the motions, holding that § 702c immunity does not extend to negligence extrinsic to a flood-control project and that material factual disputes remained regarding causation and whether the alleged MRGO-related conduct qualified for protection. The decision turned on the distinction between the navigational purpose of the MRGO and the flood-control purpose of the LPV project, along with evidence that harms from the former were not automatically shielded by the latter.

torts & liabilityfederal power

In United States v. Baker, defendant Walter Tardy was convicted of one count of making a false statement to an FBI agent about not receiving payments for class coverage hours in the first semester of 2002, after acquittal on related charges of conspiracy and fraud against the Orleans Parish Public School System involving inflated overtime claims. Tardy moved for acquittal or a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence due to ambiguities in the indictment's reference to the "first semester," lack of proof regarding class coverage forms, inconsistency with the jury's other findings, and failure to prove he knew lying to agents was unlawful. The court denied the motion, holding that any differences between the indictment and trial evidence constituted at most a harmless variance rather than a constructive amendment, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and the knowledge element was satisfied under the statute.

criminal law

The case involves defendant Joseph Impastato, a former St. Tammany Parish councilman charged with eleven counts including conspiracy, extortion, federal program fraud, attempted money laundering, and false statements to the IRS, arising from alleged dealings with debris removal contracts after Hurricane Katrina. The government moved to exclude legal opinion letters from defense attorneys that the defendant sought to introduce in support of an advice-of-counsel defense. The court granted the motion and ruled that the defendant may not rely on the advice of counsel. The core reasoning was that the opinions addressed only state-law issues, rested on factual assumptions directly contradicted by the government's extortion allegations, and did not discuss the federal crimes actually charged, making the evidence irrelevant.

criminal law

This case is a consolidated class action by New Orleans residents seeking damages for flooding that inundated much of the city after Hurricane Katrina caused breaches in the 17th Street, London Avenue, and Orleans Avenue canals and related levees. The United States moved to dismiss most counts against it under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(h)(3), arguing immunity under the Flood Control Act of 1928 and the discretionary function exception for decisions about levee design, permits, and the Lake Pontchartrain Hurricane Protection Plan. The court examined the history of federal flood-control planning by the Army Corps of Engineers, including cost-sharing with local sponsors and choices between barrier and parallel-protection plans, and concluded that the challenged government actions fell within the statutory immunities. It therefore dismissed the claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction while striking certain MRGO-related allegations under a prior case-management order.

environmentfederal powerproceduretorts & liability

The case involves criminal charges against former St. Tammany Parish councilman Joseph Impastato for conspiracy, extortion, federal program fraud, attempted money laundering, and false statements to the IRS, arising from alleged misconduct related to post-Hurricane Katrina debris removal contracts and efforts to conceal proceeds. The court addressed multiple pretrial motions, including the defendant's motion to exclude the government's proposed Rule 404(b) evidence of the defendant's prior tax violations from 1999-2004. The court granted the motion to exclude this evidence, determining that the tax acts were not intrinsic to the charged crimes because they involved distinct facts, time periods, and actors with no evidentiary overlap, and concluding they were inadmissible as extrinsic evidence.

criminal lawtaxesprocedure

The case concerned debtor Elvin Martinez's attempt to discharge federal income tax liabilities for tax years 1987 through 1993 stemming from his investments in Walter Hoyt's fraudulent sheep and cattle partnerships. The bankruptcy court, after a trial on remand, held that the taxes for 1990-1993 were not discharged because the IRS had issued timely notices of final partnership administrative adjustment and Hoyt had filed timely tax court petitions that tolled the statute of limitations, but the taxes for 1987-1989 were discharged because the statute extensions signed by Hoyt as tax matters partner were invalid due to his disabling conflict of interest with the partners. The district court affirmed these rulings, reasoning that the IRS could not rely on the acts of a TMP known to have a conflict with the partners, drawing on agency and fiduciary principles as well as Ninth Circuit precedent in similar Hoyt-related cases.

taxesfederal powerprocedure

This case involves Julian Robinson's federal habeas corpus petition challenging his 1999 Louisiana state conviction for second-degree murder as an aider and abettor in the shooting death of Charles Lewis. The district court granted the petition after an evidentiary hearing, finding that the state had withheld a supplemental police report containing exculpatory information that contradicted the sole eyewitness's trial testimony regarding the identities and roles of the perpetrators. The court concluded this nondisclosure violated Brady v. Maryland because the report was material to the defense, was not provided despite a discovery request, and could have been used to impeach key prosecution witnesses or support an alibi theory. The ruling overturned the magistrate judge's recommendation of dismissal and ordered relief based on the due process violation in the underlying criminal proceedings.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case arose from a dispute between homeowners and their insurer, State Farm, along with software provider Xactware, over the adjustment of property damage claims following Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans; plaintiffs alleged that State Farm's use of the Xactimate program, which incorporated below-market pricing databases, led to undervalued settlements, and they asserted claims including horizontal price fixing, negligence, fraud, breach of contract, and sought to proceed as a class action on behalf of other Louisiana policyholders. Defendants moved to dismiss the substantive claims and to strike the class action allegations, arguing among other things that the complaint failed to plausibly allege a conspiracy or other required elements. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, applying the Twombly pleading standard to dismiss the price-fixing claim for insufficient facts showing an agreement, while addressing other claims such as negligence and fraud on their merits and evaluating predominance issues for class certification. Core reasoning focused on whether the well-pleaded facts stated plausible claims and whether individualized issues would predominate over common ones in a class proceeding.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee's effort to avoid and recover two pre-petition payments totaling roughly $182,905 made by Entringer Bakeries to First Bank as preferential transfers under 11 U.S.C. § 547. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling that only $74,281.04 of the payments could be avoided and recovered, because that was the portion that actually diminished the debtor's estate; the balance was traceable to new loan proceeds that never fully became estate property under the debtor's control. The court rejected the bank's ordinary-course-of-business defense under § 547(c)(2) and its argument that the entire payment was outside the estate, applying the control test from cases such as Coral Petroleum to determine the estate-diminishment amount.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned a former employee's declaratory judgment action seeking to invalidate a non-compete clause in his employment contract with Hanger Prosthetics & Orthotics after resigning, along with the employer's counterclaim alleging breach of that clause and related non-solicitation and confidentiality provisions. The district court granted the employee's summary judgment motions in part and denied them in part. It held that Louisiana law governed despite a Maryland choice-of-law provision in the contract because Louisiana Revised Statute § 23:921 voids non-competes unless the employee was terminated for cause or other narrow conditions are satisfied; the contract expressly stated the non-compete applied only upon termination under specific paragraphs not present here. The court further reasoned that the non-solicitation and trade-secret claims could not be resolved on the record as to certain parishes and required further factual development.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory