This case involved the United States and Louisiana suing Citgo Petroleum for an oil spill from its Lake Charles refinery tanks into the Indian Marais and Calcasieu River during a 2006 rainstorm, which Citgo had admitted in a prior criminal guilty plea under the Clean Water Act. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that Citgo violated Section 311(b)(3) by discharging oil into navigable waters in harmful quantities and Section 301(a) by discharging without a permit, making it subject to civil penalties. The court found no genuine issues of material fact based on undisputed evidence of the spill, lack of permit authorization, and prior admissions, while rejecting Citgo's affirmative defenses including an "act of God" claim and arguments related to its criminal penalty. Injunctive relief and the penalty amount, including any gross negligence findings, were reserved for trial.
This case concerned a dispute over coverage under two Standard Flood Insurance Policies (SFIPs) issued by Allstate for adjacent properties in Louisiana that were destroyed by Hurricane Rita. The Bulls applied for the policies in August 2005, with premiums allegedly due at a later loan closing or within 30 days, but payments were delayed due to the hurricane's impact on the bank and closing dates; Allstate later issued a duplicate policy on one property by error and canceled it without following certain procedures. The court granted the Bulls' motion for summary judgment and denied Allstate's cross-motion, holding that Allstate violated the policy terms. The core reasoning was that the duplicate policy was created inadvertently rather than knowingly, which triggered Section U of the SFIP and required Allstate to provide written notice and an opportunity for the Bulls to pay a pro rata premium to increase coverage limits, which Allstate failed to do.
The case involved Technical Industries, Inc. seeking a preliminary injunction to enforce non-compete, non-solicitation, and non-disclosure provisions in a Stock Option Agreement and Non-Disclosure Agreement against its former employee, Jeffery S. Banks, who had developed aspects of Technical's proprietary Visonic pipe inspection system. The court granted the injunction but limited its geographic scope to Lafayette and Vermillion parishes in Louisiana and Harris County in Texas, and narrowly defined the protected confidential information and trade secrets. The reasoning centered on the agreements satisfying the requirements of La. R.S. 23:921 once the scope was restricted, Technical's showing of irreparable harm from potential disclosure or competition, and a balancing of equities that favored enforcement without unduly harming the public interest.
This case arose from a 2001 maritime allision in which a barge struck and damaged the Louisa swing bridge in Louisiana, releasing gas and prompting a brief mandatory evacuation that disrupted local businesses. Several businesses filed claims against the vessel owners and the state for economic losses under general maritime law, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, CERCLA, and state law. The defendants moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss the purely economic loss claims, relying on Fifth Circuit precedent from Robins Dry Dock and Testbank that generally bars recovery for such losses without physical damage to a proprietary interest. The court denied the motions, holding that the limited number of claimants here were both foreseeable and proximately affected, making the facts distinguishable from Testbank, and that tort principles of foreseeability and proximate cause should apply instead of a blanket bar on economic loss recovery; it also found the OPA and CERCLA claims not ripe for dismissal.
This case involved Medicaid providers challenging Louisiana's emergency reductions in reimbursement rates to address a projected $180 million budget shortfall in the state's Medicaid program. The providers alleged violations of federal requirements under 42 U.S.C. § 1396a, including the public process provision for rate changes and the equal access provision, as well as related claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court granted the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction halting the cuts. It reasoned that the plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success on the merits due to inadequate public notice and justification, that irreparable harm to providers and patients was likely, that the balance of hardships favored the plaintiffs, and that the public interest supported continued access to care.
This case involves the final stages of distributing settlement funds to claimants in a class action arising from alleged exposure to hazardous materials at the Combustion, Inc. site. The court held hearings to review the Special Master's reports on claims allocation methodology and the proposed schedule of individual awards, while addressing numerous claimant objections. The court adopted the Special Master's methodology, which based personal injury awards on exposure factors (such as proximity, duration, and degree of site activity within a three-mile radius) valued at $3 per point plus additional compensation for qualifying medical conditions categorized by severity and causal likelihood, and approved the amended allocation schedule. It dismissed objections and claims from claimants who failed to follow procedural requirements, such as attending conferences or hearings or showing just cause for untimely actions, and limited distributions to those named in the approved schedule while retaining jurisdiction for enforcement.
