Richard T. Haik

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.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

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.

business & regulatoryproperty

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.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

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.

torts & liabilityenvironmentbusiness & regulatory

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.

healthcarefederal powercivil rights

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.

environmentproceduretorts & liability

In re Combustion, Inc. is a multi-district class action involving tort liability and CERCLA contribution claims arising from environmental contamination, with over 80 primary defendants, hundreds of third-party defendants, and numerous insurers. The Plaintiffs' Steering Committee and settling parties sought court approval of four partial settlement agreements that would dismiss the settling defendants with prejudice from the tort claims, along with initial steps for partial disbursement of settlement funds to class members. The court granted approval after reviewing the settlements for fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy under the Reed factors, finding no evidence of fraud or collusion, considering the case's complexity and duration, the stage of proceedings, the probability of success, and the range of possible recovery. It also established maximum reserves for indemnity, litigation costs, class administration, and attorneys' fees before directing the Special Master to proceed with disbursement in the fall, while retaining jurisdiction over remaining claims and future distributions.

environmentproceduretorts & liability

The case concerns twenty-four motions for summary judgment by insurers against their insureds regarding coverage under pre-1986 'sudden and accidental' and later 'absolute' pollution exclusion clauses in commercial general liability policies for liability arising from hazardous waste contamination at a recycling site. The insureds, generators or transporters of waste, faced claims for damages from both long-term systematic releases and sudden events like fires, floods, and spills that caused off-site migration through air, soil, and water. Applying Louisiana law, the court denied the motions, finding genuine issues of material fact as to the manner of contamination and the intent of the actors, and ruling that the sudden and accidental exclusion does not bar coverage for gradual occurrences as a matter of law while intent questions require factual determination.

business & regulatoryenvironment

The case involved a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Louis Marks against tobacco companies R. J. Reynolds and Phillip Morris, alleging that his wife Verna Marks died from smoking-related illnesses; after earlier dismissals of other claims, the remaining allegations were for product design defect and breach of express warranty under the Louisiana Products Liability Act. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no genuine issue of material fact. The court granted the motion and dismissed the claims with prejudice, finding that the plaintiff failed to present evidence supporting the design defect claim and that statements by the defendants, such as those from the Tobacco Institute, did not constitute express warranties because the health risks of smoking were already known to the public. The ruling relied on the LPLA's requirements and Fifth Circuit precedent holding that such statements could not create liability for adverse health effects.

torts & liability

This case involves insurance coverage disputes arising from tort and CERCLA claims for personal injury and property damage caused by a waste oil recycling site in Livingston Parish, Louisiana, which became a Superfund site. Multiple insurers sought to apply the laws of various states (such as Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, and Texas) to direct action claims under Louisiana's Direct Action Statute and to coverage disputes with their insureds. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion and denied the insurers' motions, ruling that Louisiana law governs both the direct action claims and the contract disputes. The core reasoning was that Louisiana has the strongest interest as the site of contamination and injury, the residence of the injured parties and insureds, and the location of damaged property, while also avoiding conflicting interpretations of the same contracts under multiple states' laws.

environmentbusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involves a Black registered nurse, Jacklin Gerac-Ogashi, who was terminated from her position at Iberia General Hospital on December 12, 1994, and subsequently filed a federal lawsuit alleging racial discrimination under Title VII after receiving a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC. Her EEOC charge focused solely on the termination for leaving work early and the belief that it was racially motivated to replace her with a white nurse, but the federal complaint expanded to include multiple additional claims of widespread discrimination, such as denial of promotions, harassment, unequal policies, and preferential treatment for white employees. The court dismissed the expanded claims sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(h)(3), holding that they exceeded the scope of the EEOC investigation and charge, and limited the remaining case to the termination issue and whether it constituted racial discrimination.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case involved CERCLA plaintiffs who had conducted cleanup at a Superfund site and sought to recover certain attorney's fees and related expenses as necessary costs of response from other potentially responsible parties. The court applied the Supreme Court's Key Tronic decision, which permits recovery of attorney fees under CERCLA when the work is closely tied to actual cleanup efforts, such as identifying other responsible parties or performing tasks that non-lawyers could handle, even though CERCLA does not explicitly authorize fee recovery. Drawing on Fifth Circuit precedent and policy goals of encouraging prompt private cleanups, the court determined that specific categories of fees and expenses qualified as recoverable response costs. It awarded Avondale $267,979.06 and McDermott $55,402.09 while denying recovery for other requested amounts. The court also allowed consultant fees under circuit law treating them as necessary response costs.

environmentbusiness & regulatory