District Court, M.D. Louisiana — appointed by Jimmy Carter
Stevenson v. Williamson
District Court, M.D. Louisiana · 2008-04-09 · cited 11×
The case concerns Thalia Stevenson, a classified civil service employee and former director in the Louisiana Department of Social Services Bureau of Licensing, who sued the department and its secretary alleging retaliation and reprisal under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and La. R.S. 23:967 for reporting improper back-dating of facility licenses, as well as race-based discrimination and retaliation after protesting the failure to promote Black employees and her subsequent suspension and demotion. The defendants moved for summary judgment, presenting undisputed facts about the timing of actions like her paid suspension, performance reviews, and denial of a merit increase, while Stevenson opposed with allegations of pretext and ongoing discrimination. The court analyzed the claims under standards requiring proof of adverse employment actions, but-for causation, and legitimate non-retaliatory reasons, noting limits on state-law jurisdiction and the insufficiency of temporal proximity alone to establish retaliation.
civil rightslabor & employment
Atkins v. Ferro Corp.
District Court, M.D. Louisiana · 2008-02-11 · cited 7×
This case involves consolidated actions by multiple plaintiffs seeking damages for personal injuries, emotional distress, and related claims allegedly resulting from exposure to hazardous chemicals, including hydrochloric acid, released during a 2003 fire at Ferro Corporation's chemical plant in Zachary, Louisiana. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiffs lacked necessary expert testimony to prove exposure levels, medical causation, or negligence. The court granted defendants' motion and denied plaintiffs' cross-motion, holding that there was no genuine issue of material fact because plaintiffs' only designated expert was a meteorologist unqualified to address chemical toxicity or health effects, and no medical or other causation experts had been identified. The core reasoning applied federal summary judgment standards under Rule 56, Louisiana tort law requiring expert evidence for toxic exposure claims, and the fact that all of defendants' material facts were deemed admitted due to plaintiffs' failure to controvert them.
torts & liabilityenvironment
Cummins v. Unumprovident Insurance
District Court, M.D. Louisiana · 2007-11-15
The case involved a claim by Charles Cummins for long-term disability benefits under an ERISA-governed group insurance policy issued by Unum Life Insurance Company to his employer, based on cognitive decline secondary to HIV. Unum denied the claim, determining that depression, for which Cummins had been prescribed Zoloft during the policy's pre-existing condition period, was a contributing factor to his symptoms and thus excluded from coverage. After reviewing the administrative record and medical evidence, including neuropsychological evaluations and physician statements, the court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and granted summary judgment to Unum while denying Cummins' motion. The decision upheld Unum's benefits determination because the evidence supported depression as a pre-existing condition that contributed to the claimed disability.
healthcarelabor & employment
Albritton v. ABC CORP.
District Court, M.D. Louisiana · 2006-08-25
This case involves a Louisiana plaintiff who sued a medical device manufacturer and her treating physician in state court, alleging injuries from a pain pump implanted in her back that allegedly caused spinal damage due to the doctor's substandard care and the device's unreasonably dangerous design under state products liability law. The manufacturer removed the case to federal court, asserting federal question jurisdiction on the grounds that the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 completely preempt state claims or raise substantial federal issues regarding FDA premarket approval and preemption of state standards. The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the plaintiff's complaint pleaded only state-law claims, that preemption under the MDA is merely a defense rather than a basis for complete preemption, and that the well-pleaded complaint rule bars removal on these facts. As a result, the court remanded the action to state court without addressing the physician's motion to dismiss for failure to first submit the claims to a medical review panel.
proceduretorts & liabilityfederal powerhealthcare
TUNICA BILOXI TRIBE OF INDIANS v. Bridges
District Court, M.D. Louisiana · 2006-06-28
The case concerned whether Louisiana could impose sales tax on a van purchased by the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe, a federally recognized Indian tribe, from an off-reservation dealership. The court ruled in favor of the state defendants, holding that the tax was lawfully due. Under Louisiana Civil Code articles governing sales, ownership transfers at the moment the parties agree on the thing and the price, which occurred when the Tribe accepted Bolton Ford's bid by telephone from Lake Charles; subsequent delivery and inspection on the reservation did not alter the location of that taxable event. The court rejected the Tribe's argument that the sale was contingent on on-reservation inspection or that title passage on the reservation controlled taxability.
taxesbusiness & regulatoryfederal power
United States v. Gremillion-Stovall
District Court, M.D. Louisiana · 2005-10-17 · cited 3×
In United States v. Gremillion-Stovall, the defendant faced a single-count indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 alleging that she executed a scheme from 1998 to 2002 to conceal material facts and make false statements to the USDA in order to obtain a home loan, payment subsidies, and food stamps by misrepresenting that she was the sole wage earner in her household. The defendant moved to dismiss the portions of the indictment based on conduct before April 14, 2000, on the ground that they were barred by the five-year statute of limitations in 18 U.S.C. § 3282. The court granted the motion and dismissed those allegations. It held that the charged conduct was not a continuing offense under the standard set forth in Toussie v. United States because the language of § 1001 does not compel that conclusion and the nature of the crime does not require it, with limitations statutes to be interpreted liberally in favor of repose.
criminal lawprocedure