Peter Hill Beer

In Brown v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the plaintiff sued multiple cigarette manufacturers under the Louisiana Products Liability Act after being diagnosed with throat cancer, alleging that the cigarettes he smoked from 1946 to 1991 were unreasonably dangerous in design. Three of the plaintiff's four theories of recovery had already been dismissed, leaving only the defective design claim under the LPLA. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proving a feasible alternative design existed at the time the relevant cigarettes left the manufacturers' control, that such a design would have prevented his injury, and that it satisfied the statute's risk-utility test; evidence regarding the Premier cigarette was insufficient because it was not commercially feasible and not admissible against all defendants.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In this case, the Simmons sought to reinstate federal securities claims under section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 that had been dismissed as time-barred under Lampf v. Gilbertson after Congress enacted section 27A of the 1934 Act to allow such reinstatements within 60 days. The court denied the motion to reinstate, finding that while the claims met the statute's facial requirements, section 27A violated separation of powers principles. The core reasoning was that the statute impermissibly altered the retroactive application of Lampf in a manner inconsistent with James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia, which requires that new rules of law apply to all pending cases once decided, thereby constituting an unconstitutional legislative interference with judicial decisions.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Engineering Dynamics, Inc. sued defendants Structural Software, Inc. and S. Rao Guntur for copyright infringement of its SACS structural analysis software manuals and user interface, as well as related trade dress and unfair competition claims. The court found that the defendants' StruCAD manuals were substantially similar to EDI's copyrighted SACS manuals, including copied errors, constituting infringement, but held that the user interface was not copyrightable under precedent from Synercom Technology, Inc. v. University Computing Co. It awarded EDI $250,000 in actual damages from SSI's profits and enjoined further distribution of the infringing manual until a non-infringing version was created, while dismissing claims against Guntur personally and rejecting trade dress liability. The reasoning centered on the manuals' originality following EDI's prior redesign to avoid infringement, the substantial similarities indicating copying, and the policy of the Copyright Act to protect expression while recognizing the defendants' innovation in personal computer compatibility.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved the State of Louisiana seeking a temporary injunction to block proposed Outer Continental Shelf Sale 135, an offshore oil and gas lease sale scheduled for August 21, 1991, on grounds that the Department of the Interior violated the Coastal Zone Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction after applying the four-factor test from Canal Authority v. Callaway, which requires plaintiffs to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury, that the balance of harms favors them, and that the injunction would not disserve the public interest. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to meet the first factor because they did not show that the agency's consistency determination or Environmental Impact Statement was arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law under the Administrative Procedure Act, as the agency had sufficient information to support its findings and the documents adequately addressed relevant coastal and environmental factors.

environmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned whether defendants including H & B Construction, Blue Cross entities, and a multiple employer trust violated COBRA by failing to offer continuation coverage under a group health plan after plaintiff Oreste Kidder's termination from employment, instead providing only an individual conversion policy that paid lower benefits during a subsequent hospitalization. The court made findings of fact regarding the merger of H & B Construction and H & B Marine, their practice of exchanging employees, the number of employees covered under the plan, and the lack of any COBRA notice or election opportunity provided to the Kidders. It concluded that COBRA applied because the combined entities employed more than twenty people on average and that the defendants had duties to notify and provide continuation coverage under the statute.

labor & employmenthealthcare

In Castillo v. Spiliada Maritime Corp., five Filipino seamen sued their maritime employer for wages, penalty wages under 46 U.S.C. 10313, and related claims after being terminated and repatriated following complaints about altered employment contracts. The defendant sought summary judgment or a stay based on a Philippine settlement, forum-selection clauses approved by the POEA, and principles of comity, while the plaintiffs cross-moved for summary judgment arguing the releases were invalid due to economic duress and lack of counsel. The court determined that federal jurisdiction over the wage claims is mandatory only if brought in good faith, which must be shown here because U.S. contacts were minimal and liability was disputed, and therefore denied both summary judgment motions pending an evidentiary hearing limited to the good-faith issue.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case concerns a maritime accident in which the vessel M/V GREEN CANYON EXPRESS struck and ruptured a natural gas pipeline owned by United Gas Pipeline Company beneath the Houma Navigation Canal on March 24, 1986, leading to damage to the connected Voisin Well operated by Pennzoil Producing Company and co-owners. The court determined that both Offshore Express, Inc., the vessel's owner, and United Gas were negligent and liable in equal 50% shares for the incident. The vessel captain was found negligent for veering from the channel and failing to adjust speed in foggy conditions, while United Gas was negligent for allowing the pipeline to become partially uncovered and an obstruction to navigation despite known erosion and dredging. Pennzoil's recovery was limited to $150,000 due to its failure to mitigate damages by not properly managing the well after the rupture.

torts & liabilityproperty

In Fatakia v. Hanna, an investor who opened a margin account with a brokerage firm and suffered major losses when the stock market crashed on Black Monday in 1987 sued the broker and firm, alleging federal and state securities fraud, RICO violations, unfair trade practices, and tortious conduct, including wrongful liquidation of his account without adequate notice. The defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the federal securities fraud claim under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, arguing lack of evidence that any misrepresentations caused the losses rather than the market crash, and on the liquidation issue. The court granted summary judgment on the misrepresentation claim, holding that the plaintiff failed to produce evidence of proximate causation as required to establish a prima facie case, applying the Celotex standard that summary judgment is mandated when a party cannot show a genuine issue of material fact on an essential element. The court declined to address the liquidation claim because it had not been formally pled.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a cargo shortage claim where Community Coffee sued the vessel, its owner, and charterer after sealed containers of coffee arrived missing over half their bags. The owner and charterer then brought third-party claims for indemnity and contribution against the stevedoring company and trucking company that handled the containers after discharge. The court did not resolve the underlying dispute but instead questioned whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over these third-party claims following the Supreme Court's decision in Finley v. United States. The court reasoned that while ancillary jurisdiction has traditionally covered such Rule 14(a) claims, Finley's restrictive view on supplemental jurisdiction over additional parties without explicit congressional authorization may require dismissal, and thus ordered the parties to show cause why the third-party claims should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

procedure

In this case, plaintiffs sued First Industrial Bank in Louisiana state court over a dispute, and after successors including the FDIC as receiver took over the defense, the FDIC removed the action to federal court. Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing that removal was untimely because the FDIC had obtained a stay of the state proceedings more than thirty days earlier, making it a de facto party. The court denied the motion to remand, holding that removal was timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) and 12 U.S.C. § 1819. The core reasoning was that the thirty-day removal clock begins only when the FDIC formally becomes a “party” through substitution under state procedural rules, not when it merely participates by requesting a stay as a non-party.

procedurefederal power

This case concerned a challenge to the configuration of Jefferson Parish Council districts under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, with plaintiffs arguing that the existing setup, including floterial and quasi-at-large seats, failed to provide a black majority district. The court adopted a modified plan submitted by the Parish Council that divided the parish into six single-member districts plus one parishwide at-large seat, eliminating the prior quasi-at-large East-bank and West-bank positions. The decision deferred to the elected council's proposal on local boundary details such as drainage and neighborhood concerns because it comported with constitutional requirements, while requiring the new districts to take effect for the 1991 elections and remain subject to adjustment after the 1990 census. The court noted that the council could make limited precinct adjustments to increase black voter percentages in one district without altering the overall plan structure.

electionscivil rights

This case concerns a challenge under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to the existing three-tiered structure of the Jefferson Parish Council, which the court previously found did not fully comply with the statute by diluting minority voting strength. After rejecting the plaintiffs' proposed remedy, the court considered alternative redistricting plans submitted by both sides and proposes to adopt the defendants' plan with modifications. The modified plan would create six single-member districts plus one at-large seat for a total of seven council members, eliminating the quasi-at-large positions. The core reasoning is that courts must defer to the legislative body in redistricting matters and limit changes to those necessary to cure statutory or constitutional flaws such as malapportionment and minority vote dilution.

electionscivil rights

The case involved plaintiff Floyd Stevenson, a roustabout employed on an outer continental shelf fixed platform, who was injured when cargo shifted on the M/V POINT LIBERTY during unloading operations and sued the vessel owner Point Marine for negligence under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). Point Marine moved to strike Stevenson's jury trial demand, arguing that the claim, which incorporated Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act section 905(b) via OCSLA, fell under admiralty jurisdiction rather than federal question jurisdiction. The court granted the motion and struck the jury demand, reasoning that OCSLA coverage applied because the injury arose out of offshore mineral production operations under the Fifth Circuit's but-for test, and that section 905(b) claims against vessel owners constitute admiralty actions traditionally tried without juries.

proceduretorts & liabilitylabor & employment

In Aviles v. United States, a Coast Guard yeoman who tested positive for HIV during a mandatory exam sued the United States and individual officers after being compelled to retire with a disability rating and after the test results were shared within his unit. He claimed violations of his First, Fifth, and Ninth Amendment rights, the Rehabilitation Act, the Privacy Act, and state-law torts including invasion of privacy and emotional distress, seeking damages and equitable relief. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b), holding that the Feres doctrine bars FTCA claims and related constitutional or tort actions by service members for injuries arising incident to military service. It further found that the plaintiff lacked standing for equitable relief because he sought no personal remedy and that the Rehabilitation Act does not apply to the Coast Guard. Additional procedural grounds, such as improper service, were noted but not reached after the immunity and standing rulings.

civil rightsfederal powerproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a lawsuit by the East Jefferson Coalition for Leadership and Development and other plaintiffs against Jefferson Parish, alleging that the parish's seven-member council apportionment plan—using four single-member districts plus at-large and floaterial seats—violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (as amended) by diluting black voters' electoral strength, along with related claims under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The plan had been adopted after a prior consent decree addressing one-person, one-vote population equality and had received preclearance from the U.S. Attorney General. The court reviewed 1980 census data showing a black population of about 14 percent with no black members ever elected to the council, analyzed voting patterns across multiple elections for evidence of racial polarization, and applied the totality-of-circumstances test under the amended Section 2 to assess whether the electoral structure denied minorities equal opportunity to participate and elect representatives of their choice.

electionscivil rights

In Buckner v. State Boat Operators, Inc., the plaintiff, a vessel captain assigned by defendant SBO, was injured when he jumped five feet between adjacent boats to board his vessel because no gangplank was provided. SBO moved for summary judgment on the Jones Act negligence claim, arguing that Buckner had breached his contractual duties as captain by failing to request a gangplank, which should bar recovery. The court denied the motion, holding that the shipowner's duty to provide a safe means of ingress and egress is non-delegable and that Fifth Circuit precedent applies comparative negligence rather than an absolute bar based on any assumed contractual duty by the seaman. Factual questions remained regarding whether SBO knew of the missing gangplank and any causal role of its negligence, requiring submission to the trier of fact.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a lawsuit by Judith B. Curtis against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries sustained in a 1985 car accident in Louisiana, where a U.S. Marine Corps vehicle driven by Sergeant Charles Shivers crossed into her lane. The court determined that the government was liable for the negligence of its employee, who was acting within the scope of his employment, and that the accident aggravated the plaintiff's pre-existing degenerative disc condition, necessitating surgery. The plaintiff was awarded $75,000 in total damages, covering property damage to her vehicle, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and related losses, based on the evidence from treating physicians and applicable state law on damages for torts. The reasoning emphasized that the tortfeasor takes the victim as found and that the opinion of the treating physician carried significant weight.

torts & liabilityfederal power

In Pearson v. Rowan Companies, Inc., a seaman and his wife sued his employer and a fellow crewmember under the Jones Act and general maritime law after the seaman was allegedly pushed down stairs by the crewmember. The individual defendant moved to dismiss, arguing no cause of action exists against a co-employee for assault under these laws. The court denied the motion, holding that while statutory and unseaworthiness claims are limited to employers and vessel owners, general maritime law permits a negligence claim against a co-employee for an intentional tort, consistent with the broad equitable powers of admiralty courts.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

The case involves a seaman injured while serving as master of a vessel owned by Bailey Coke and Transport, Inc., who sought coverage from the Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association (LIGA) after the employer's insurer became insolvent. The parties moved for summary judgment on whether LIGA must assume the policy obligations. The court denied the motion, concluding that LIGA had no obligation to provide coverage. The policy's inclusion of protection and indemnity coverage for Jones Act maritime risks qualified it as ocean marine insurance, which is statutorily excluded from LIGA's scope under La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 22:1377, and the policy's label as a standard workers' compensation policy did not alter that classification.

business & regulatorylabor & employmenttorts & liability

This case concerned Dow Chemical Company's claims that American Cyanamid Company infringed multiple Dow patents (the 'oxide' and 'salt' patents) covering chemical processes for hydrating acrylonitrile to produce acrylamide using reduced copper oxide or copper salt catalysts. Cyanamid denied infringement and counterclaimed seeking declarations that the patents were invalid, unenforceable, and not infringed. After a bench trial, the court exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) and made detailed findings of fact on the commercial background of acrylamide production, the parties' development of alternative processes to the sulfuric acid method, prior art references such as Mahan, Watanabe, and Cook, and the specific experimental work by Dow's researchers on catalysts like manganese dioxide and zinc chromites.

business & regulatoryprocedure