|
Preston Hollow Capital, LLC v. Cottonwood Development Corp. Docket: 21-50389 Opinion Date: January 14, 2022 Judge: James C. Ho Areas of Law: Constitutional Law The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, based on failure to state a claim, of the complaint alleging a 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim theorizing that defendants' refusal to return loaned funds violated the Takings Clause. The court applied Massó-Torrellas v. Mun. of Toa Alta, 845 F.3d 461, 468 (1st Cir. 2017), which held that when a municipality acts in a contractual or proprietary capacity, actions such as contract termination or detention of property under the contract that would constitute a simple breach of contract when a non-governmental entity is involved do not become a constitutional violation simply because the contracting party is a municipality. In this case, all of the misconduct in the complaint involves "commercial" and not "sovereign" acts, and thus any claim that Preston Hollow may have asserted should be a breach of contract claim rather than a taking claim. Read Opinion
0 Comments
US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions Seguin v. Remington Arms Company, LLC Docket: 17-30499 Opinion Date: January 6, 2022 Judge: Leslie H. Southwick Areas of Law: Products Liability The Fifth Circuit certified a question to the Louisiana Supreme Court: Does Section 9:2800.60(B) of the Louisiana Products Liability Act bar an individual, who is shot and injured by a third-party, from bringing a design defect claim under Section 9:2800.56 against a firearm manufacturer or seller? Read Opinion Take a look at the new Louisiana laws that took effect Jan. 1
www.wwno.org/2021-12-31/take-a-look-at-the-new-louisiana-laws-that-take-effect-jan-1 Here are Some Louisiana Laws to Take Effect Jan. 1, 2022 www.houmatimes.com/news/here-are-some-louisiana-laws-to-take-effect-jan-1-2022/ US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions United States v. Okulaja Docket: 20-20101 Opinion Date: December 27, 2021 Judge: Jacques Loeb Wiener, Jr. Areas of Law: Criminal Law The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for using two counterfeit passports to open bank accounts, but vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing. The court concluded that the district court did not err, let alone abuse its discretion, in admitting two webcam photos in evidence where the photos were properly authenticated. The court also concluded that any error in excluding the photo of the fake driver's license was harmless. However, the court concluded that the district court clearly erred in calculating defendant's guideline range when it used USSG 1B1.3(a)(2)'s broad definition of relevant conduct, even though that provision does not apply to defendant's offenses of conviction. Furthermore, application of the correct definition would have left defendant with a guidelines range of 10-16 months for each count, rather than the 27-33 months for each count that the district court calculated. Read Opinion US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions Johnson v. TheHuffingtonpost.com, Inc. Docket: 21-20022 Opinion Date: December 23, 2021 Judge: Jerry E. Smith Areas of Law: Communications Law, Internet Law, Personal Injury The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal for want of jurisdiction of plaintiff's action against HuffPost, alleging that it libeled him by calling him a white nationalist and a Holocaust denier. Plaintiff filed suit against HuffPost in the Southern District of Texas, but HuffPost is a citizen of Delaware and New York. Furthermore, HuffPost has no physical ties to Texas, has no office in Texas, employs no one in Texas, and owns no property there. In this case, plaintiff identifies only one link to Texas that relates to the dispute: the fact that HuffPost's website and the alleged libel are visible in Texas. The court stated that mere accessibility cannot demonstrate purposeful availment. The court explained that although HuffPost's site shows ads and sells merchandise, neither act targets Texas specifically. Even if those acts did target Texas, the court concluded that neither relates to plaintiff's claim, and thus neither supports specific jurisdiction. Finally, plaintiff has not met his burden to merit jurisdictional discovery. Read Opinion Malta v. Herbert S. Hiller Corp. et al.
Docket: 2021-C-00209 Opinion Date: December 10, 2021 Judge: John L. Weimer Areas of Law: Personal Injury The issue presented for the Louisiana Supreme Court's review in this case arose after plaintiff sued for injuries sustained when a cylinder that formed part of a fire-suppressant system discharged while the plaintiff was moving the cylinder after it had been offloaded from a jack-up boat onto an oil production platform. Specifically, the issues in this case were: (1) whether the company hired to inspect the platform’s fire suppression systems owed a duty of care and, if so, whether it breached that duty; (2) whether the inspection company’s actions were the cause-in-fact and legal cause of the plaintiff’s injuries; (3) whether the inspection company was solely at fault; and (4) whether the general damage awards and the loss of consortium award are excessive. The Supreme Court found the trial court did not err in finding that the inspection company was liable for the plaintiff’s injuries; however, because there were multiple causes of the accident, the trial court manifestly erred in allocating all of the fault to the inspection company. Furthermore, based on the evidence of plaintiff’s injuries, the Supreme Court found the trial court abused its discretion in fixing plaintiff’s general damage awards for physical and psychological injuries and the loss of consortium award of plaintiff’s son. The trial court’s judgment was amended to allocate fault to the operator of the platform and plaintiff ,and to reduce the challenged damage awards. As amended, the trial court’s judgment was affirmed, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings. Read Opinion Louisiana v. Trahan Docket: 2020-K-01233 Opinion Date: December 10, 2021 Judge: Per Curiam Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law In 2015, applicant Elizabeth Trahan was involved in a tragic automobile accident, which resulted in a fatality. Applicant and her boyfriend were in a Dodge Charger, which was traveling north at 72 mph in the left lane on Highway 167 between Maurice and Abbeville, Lousiana. Motorcyclist Carl Johnson passed them on the right, switched into the left lane in front of them, and then braked, apparently intending to turn left across the highway median. Skid marks showed that the driver of the Charger attempted to stop. The Charger collided with the motorcycle and Johnson was killed. A jury found applicant guilty of vehicular homicide, for which the trial court sentenced her to 15 years imprisonment at hard labor, with all but six years of the sentence suspended, and with three years of active supervised probation. Regarding whether the State proved that applicant’s impairment was a contributing factor, the court of appeal acknowledged that metabolites detected in applicant’s blood and urine, standing alone, did “not allow the jury to assume the defendant was impaired or that the presence of those substances was a contributing factor in the accident.” However, the court of appeal found that the jury could consider additional circumstances, such as the fact that applicant exceeded the speed limit and was unable to stop in time to avoid the accident, to conclude that drugs impaired her driving and thus contributed to the accident. The dissent observed that expert testimony in conjunction with evidence of behavioral manifestations of intoxication was ordinarily used to establish that a driver was impaired, and no such evidence was offered by the State in this case. The Louisiana Supreme Court agreed with the court of appeals' dissent that a jury could not reasonably conclude from the evidence presented at trial that applicant was impaired or that her impairment was a contributing factor to the fatal accident, and therefore the conviction could not survive appellate review under the due process standard of Jackson v. Virginia. Because a rational trier of fact could not reasonably conclude, without speculating, that applicant’s ingestion of controlled dangerous substances was a contributing factor to the fatal accident, the Supreme Court concluded applicant was entitled to an acquittal under Hudson v. Louisiana, 450 U.S. 40(1981). Accordingly, the Court reversed the ruling of the court of appeal, vacated applicant’s conviction and sentence for vehicular homicide, and entered a judgment of acquittal. Read Opinion Louisiana Supreme Court Opinions Kinnett v. Kinnett Dockets: 2020-CJ-01134, 2020-CJ-01143, 2020-CJ-01156 Opinion Date: December 10, 2021 Judge: Crain Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Family Law Keith Andrews intervened in the divorce proceedings of Karen and Jarred Kinnett, asserting he was the biological father of Ms. Kinnett’s youngest child. His avowal action was filed eighteen months after the child’s birth. The Louisiana Supreme Court found the avowal action untimely and perempted under Louisiana Civil Code article 198 . The case was remanded for the court of appeal to address Andrews’ remaining constitutional challenge. Read Opinion Molina v. Home Depot USA, Inc. Docket: 21-20128 Opinion Date: December 9, 2021 Judge: Jennifer Walker Elrod Areas of Law: Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Home Depot, plaintiff's former employer, in an action alleging personal injury claims stemming from a workplace incident. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that Home Depot breached its duty to provide him with proper assistance, equipment, and training to safely execute "flat stacking," a process of rearranging building materials. The court affirmed in part, concluding that there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to plaintiff's claims for inadequate assistance and training. In this case, Home Depot had no duty to provide assistance that was unnecessary to the job's safe performance. However, the court concluded that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to plaintiff's claim for inadequate equipment. The court explained that there are factual disputes over whether Home Depot had a duty to provide a back brace and whether the lack of a back brace was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury. Accordingly, the court vacated in part and remanded. Read Opinion US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions Fletcher v. Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development Docket: 21-30069 Opinion Date: December 6, 2021 Judge: Jacques Loeb Wiener, Jr. Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of the Department's motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that Louisiana has not waived its sovereign immunity for claims under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In this case, plaintiff filed suit for disability discrimination under the Act after he was terminated from his job of nearly twenty-four years based on his medical problems. The court also denied plaintiff's request to certify a question to the Louisiana Supreme Court, concluding that this case does not present a genuinely unsettled matter of Louisiana law and thus certification is not appropriate. Read Opinion US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions Coleman v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. Docket: 20-40811 Opinion Date: November 29, 2021 Judge: Don R. Willett Areas of Law: Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants in an action brought by plaintiff, an oil-platform worker, after he injured his back while building scaffolding. Plaintiff filed suit against the companies managing both the day-to-day construction and the overall construction project. The court concluded, however, that a reasonable jury could not find that either company was liable for the worker's injury because neither was his direct employer. In this case, the Hickman factors weigh in favor of holding that plaintiff was Grand Isle and BP's independent contractor. Furthermore, the court agreed with the district court that the operational-control exception did not apply as to either BP or Grand Isle. Read Opinion Early Voting for Dec.11 Election Begins this Weekend in Lafourche Parish
www.houmatimes.com/news/early-voting-for-dec-11-election-begins-this-weekend-in-lafourche-parish/ New York Party Shuttle, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board Docket: 20-61072 Opinion Date: November 22, 2021 Judge: Edith Brown Clement Areas of Law: Labor & Employment Law After the Board concluded that NYPS committed an unfair labor practice and ordered NYPS to reinstate an employee and make him whole, NYPS appealed the Board’s liability finding but failed to file an opening brief. The Fifth Circuit entered a default judgment and the Board held a compliance proceeding to determine damages. At the proceeding, an ALJ awarded some $91,000 in backpay to the employee. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the district court's findings support the Board's conclusion that petitioners constitute a single employer. In this case, substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that there is common ownership and financial control among petitioners; substantial evidence supports the Board's finding of an interrelation of operations between all five petitioners; the record supports the Board's finding that a common cast of characters, who operate on a "readily fungible" team, manage the companies; and substantial evidence once supports the Board's findings that there is centralized control over critical policy matters. The court rejected petitioners' contention that the underlying 2013 merits order is void ab initio because of the Supreme Court's holding in NLRB v. Noel Canning, 573 U.S. 513, 519 (2014). The court affirmed the Board's order to pay the employee backpay except for the portion of that order awarding backpay for the period of October 2014 to 2018. As to that part of the order, the court reversed and remanded. Finally, the court rejected petitioners' evidentiary arguments. Read Opinion US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions Admar International, Inc. v. Eastrock, LLC Docket: 21-30098 Opinion Date: November 19, 2021 Judge: James C. Ho Areas of Law: Civil Procedure Merely running a website that is accessible in all 50 states, but that does not specifically target the forum state, is not enough to create the "minimum contacts" necessary to establish personal jurisdiction in the forum state under International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). The defendant must take the additional step of targeting the forum state in a manner that reflects "purposeful availment" of the opportunity to do business in that state. Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that Eastrock committed copyright and trade dress infringement by displaying copies of their products on its website. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint based on lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding that there is no evidence to support the conclusion that Eastrock's website specifically targets Louisiana. Read Opinion Complete election results: Terrebonne Parish
www.wwltv.com/article/news/local/complete-election-results-terrebonne-parish/289-404ba47c-3d02-411a-93df-ce3197937dd0 United States v. Garza-De La Cruz Docket: 21-50394 Opinion Date: November 10, 2021 Judge: Per Curiam Areas of Law: Criminal Law The Fifth Circuit granted the government's motion for summary affirmance, denied the government's alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief, and affirmed the district court's judgment. Defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and was sentenced to 50 months in prison based on the ten-year maximum because of his prior felony conviction. Defendant argues that the enhancement of his sentence based on the prior felony is unconstitutional because it is based on facts neither alleged in his indictment nor proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. However, defendant concedes that this issue is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 239-47 (1998). Read Opinion Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Blocks Biden's Vaccine Mandate
www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/21/21-60845.0.pdf "Because the petitions give cause to believe there are grave statutory and constitutional issues with the Mandate, the Mandate is hereby STAYED pending further action by this court." Louisiana Leads Multi-State Lawsuit Against Biden’s COVID Executive Order
www.houmatimes.com/news/louisiana-leads-multi-state-lawsuit-against-bidens-covid-executive-order/ US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions Stevens v. St. Tammany Parish Government Docket: 20-30644 Opinion Date: November 3, 2021 Judge: Stephen Andrew Higginson Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Environmental Law, Real Estate & Property Law In the first suit between the parties, the state trial court entered judgment against plaintiffs in August 2018. Plaintiffs then filed this second suit in federal court, asserting the same state law claims in addition to claims under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the state law claims as precluded by res judicata; dismissal of the CWA claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim; and denial of plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief. In this case, the non-CWA claims existed at the time of the state court judgment, and are the same as those asserted in the state court litigation. Furthermore, plaintiffs have forfeited any argument that the district court erred in dismissing the CWA allegations in the original, first, and second amended complaints. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiffs' subsequent Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration, which included a request for leave to file a third amended complaint. Read Opinion US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions Gezu v. Charter Communications Docket: 21-10198 Opinion Date: November 2, 2021 Judge: Cory T. Wilson Areas of Law: Arbitration & Mediation, Labor & Employment Law Gezu worked for Charter, 2017-2019. In October 2017, Charter sent an email to all active, non-union employees announcing a new employment-based legal dispute resolution program. The email instructed employees about their right to opt out. The arbitration agreement, which was available in full on Charter’s intranet, required arbitration of all disputes, claims, and controversies that could be asserted in court or before an administrative agency. During his employment, Gezu allegedly suffered discrimination based on his race and national origin and Charter did not take any action to address the discrimination despite being made aware of it. Charter terminated Gezu in May 2019, based on what Gezu alleges were pretextual reasons. Gezu, acting pro se, asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. 1981. The Fifth Circuit affirmed an order granting Charter’s motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss. There was a valid modification to Gezu’s employment contract, consisting of notice and acceptance. Read Opinion New Orleans shoeshine man wins legal battle over $30,000 seized by DEA agents
www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/new-orleans-shoeshine-man-wins-legal-battle-over-30-000-n1282629 Terrebonne files appeal in coastal damage lawsuit
www.houmatoday.com/story/news/2021/10/29/terrebonne-files-appeal-coastal-damage-lawsuit/6183784001/ United States v. Adair Docket: 21-50218 Opinion Date: October 26, 2021 Judge: Stephen Andrew Higginson Areas of Law: Criminal Law The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for possessing a firearm after a felony conviction. The court concluded that defendant's Texas robbery conviction qualifies as a crime of violence under USSG 4B1.2(a)(2), and the district court properly applied USSG 2K2.1(a)(4)(A). The court explained that defendant misconstrues the fourth footnote in United States v. Santiesteban-Hernandez, which the court previously explained in an unpublished opinion which simply recognizes that the generic definition of robbery did not require a particular mens rea. Furthermore, defendant's reading of this footnote is at odds with the opinion's conclusion that Texas robbery and generic robbery substantially correspond. Read Opinion |
Louisiana Law BlogLouisiana Law, News, Issues and Comments from Attorneys at the Shoultz Law Firm Archives
January 2022
Categories
|
RSS Feed