How Population Shifts in Louisiana Will Affect Redistricting


www.houmatimes.com/news/how-population-shifts-in-louisiana-will-affect-redistricting/

Bolden v. Tisdale et al.

Docket: 2021-CC-00224
Opinion Date: January 28, 2022
Judge: Jefferson D. Hughes, III
Areas of Law: Personal Injury

In September 2015, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers played the New Orleans Saints in the New Orleans Superdome. In preparation for the game, the Buccaneers’ Director of Football Security Operations contacted the New Orleans Police Department (“NOPD”) to request motorcycle escorts, by off-duty law enforcement for officers, for the team’s buses traveling in the New Orleans area, which were to include an escort after the game when the team buses would travel from the Superdome to the airport. NOPD agreed to provide the necessary off-duty officers, along with officers from the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office (“JPSO”), for the Buccaneer team buses. At issue on the motion for summary judgment filed in this case was whether the Buccaneers football organization was vicariously liable, as an employer, for the alleged negligence of an off-duty Jefferson Parish sheriff’s deputy, who was part of the motorcycle escort for the team’s buses, when the motorcycle the deputy was riding collided with another deputy directing traffic on foot in an intersection. The Louisiana Supreme Court held that the unrebutted evidence presented by defendants moving for summary judgment showed there was no employee-employer relationship between the deputy sheriff and the Buccaneers under the facts and circumstances of this case; therefore, the Court reversed the denial of the Buccaneers’ motion for summary judgment and remanded to the district court for entry of a summary judgment in favor of defendants.

Read Opinion

Louisiana v. Schmidt

Docket: 2021-K-00491
Opinion Date: January 28, 2022
Judge: Per Curiam
Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Louisiana Supreme Court granted the State’s application to determine whether the State carried its heavy burden of showing that the two-year limitations period to commence trial on defendant Joseph Schmidt's non-capital felony charges was interrupted by defendant’s failure “to appear at any proceeding pursuant to actual notice, proof of which appears in the record.” After careful review, the Supreme Court found the State failed to carry its burden of showing that the statute of limitations was tolled. Specifically, the Court found no proof in the record that defendant failed to appear at a proceeding in 1995 pursuant to actual notice. Accordingly, the Court agreed with the court of appeal and the district court that this non-capital felony prosecution had to be quashed because the State failed to timely commence the trial.

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Danziger & De Llano, LLP v. Morgan Verkamp, LLC

Docket: 21-20186
Opinion Date: January 27, 2022
Judge: Stephen Andrew Higginson
Areas of Law: Civil Procedure

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Danziger's complaint based on lack of personal jurisdiction. Danziger, a Texas resident, filed three intentional tort claims and a claim for breach of contract against Morgan Verkamp, a Ohio-based law firm, and two of its members, residents of Ohio. The court concluded that, because none of Morgan Verkamp's allegedly tortious conduct either occurred in Texas or was otherwise meaningfully connected to the state, the district court correctly dismissed Danziger's intentional tort claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. Furthermore, the district court correctly dismissed Danziger's breach of contract claims for lack of personal jurisdiction where Danziger was the only connection between the alleged contract and Texas.

Read Opinion

Weinhoffer v. Davie Shoring, Inc.

Docket: 20-30568
Opinion Date: January 20, 2022
Judge: Higginbotham
Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Contracts, Internet Law

In this dispute over terms of an online auction, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the district court abused its discretion by improperly admitting evidence and taking judicial notice of the terms. The court explained that Exhibit 41, an internet printout, was not properly authenticated, and the district court abused its discretion by determining that the exhibit was fit under Federal Rule of Evidence 803. Furthermore, the district court erred in taking judicial notice of the terms because a private internet archive falls short of being a source whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned as required by Rule 201. Because the district court's errors were not harmless, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
O'Brien's Response Management, L.L.C. v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc.

Docket: 20-30364
Opinion Date: January 19, 2022
Judge: Edith H. Jones
Areas of Law: Business Law, Contracts, Environmental Law, Insurance Law, Personal Injury

BP retained the Responders (O’Brien’s and NRC) for nearly $2 billion to assist with the cleanup of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Thousands of the Responders' workers filed personal injury lawsuits against BP, which were consolidated and organized into “pleading bundles.” The B3 bundle included “all claims for personal injury and/or medical monitoring for exposure or other injury occurring after the explosion and fire of April 20, 2010.” In 2012, BP entered the “Medical Settlement” on the B3 claims with a defined settlement class. The opt-out deadline closed in October 2012. The Medical Settlement created a new type of claim for latent injuries, BackEnd Litigation Option (BELO) claims. After the settlement, plaintiffs could bring opt-out B3 claims if they did not participate in the settlement, and BELO claims if they were class members who alleged latent injuries and followed the approved process. Responders were aware of the settlement before the district court approved it but neither Responder had control over the negotiations, nor did either approve the settlement. In 2017, BP sought indemnification for 2,000 BELO claims by employees of the Responders. The Fifth Circuit held that BP was an additional insured up to the minimum amount required by its contract with O’Brien’s; the insurance policies maintained by O’Brien’s cannot be combined to satisfy the minimum amount. O’Brien’s is not required to indemnify BP because BP materially breached its indemnification provision with respect to the BELO claims.

Read Opinion

Mary v. QEP Energy Co.

Docket: 21-30195
Opinion Date: January 18, 2022
Judge: W. Eugene Davis
Areas of Law: Real Estate & Property Law

Plaintiffs filed suit after defendant installed two pipelines on their property partially outside the boundary established in the parties' servitude agreement. At issue in this appeal is whether, as a consequence of this encroachment, plaintiffs are entitled to disgorgement of all profits defendant earned from the gas that flowed through the pipelines. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, concluding that the most plaintiffs could recover are the additional profits defendant earned as a direct result of the encroachment, as compared to the profits it would have earned if it had installed the pipelines entirely within the servitude. In this case, plaintiffs have no evidence that defendant earned any such additional profits, and thus the district court correctly determined that defendant was not responsible for disgorging its profits.

Read Opinion

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

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/