John Victor Parker

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

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

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

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

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

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

This case involved a labor dispute at Exxon Mobil's Baton Rouge chemical plant over whether the company violated its collective bargaining agreement with the union by assigning electricians (represented by a different union) to troubleshoot programmable logic controls instead of the union's instrument technicians. After the company denied the grievance, the parties agreed on an issue for arbitration, but the arbitrator ruled in the company's favor on that issue while also deciding an additional 'implied' issue based on past practice and awarding compensation to the technician. Exxon Mobil moved for summary judgment to vacate the portion of the award addressing the implied issue. The court granted the motion, holding that the arbitrator exceeded his authority under the agreement by deciding an unpresented issue and that the award on that point did not draw its essence from the collective bargaining agreement.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved Transcontinental Pipe Line Corporation seeking coverage under comprehensive general liability and umbrella insurance policies issued by National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh to a contractor, after Transco was named as an additional insured in connection with a 1995 natural gas pipeline rupture that led to the Ard litigation brought by hundreds of plaintiffs alleging injuries. The court had previously ruled that Transco qualified as an insured and that National Union owed a duty to defend, and after trial it addressed issues of late notice and cooperation under the policies. The court entered judgment for Transco, awarding post-notice defense costs and indemnity for settlement amounts paid in the underlying suit. The core reasoning centered on the policies' notice and cooperation provisions, the timing and content of Transco's communications to the insurer via the contractor, and the absence of prejudice or breach sufficient to bar coverage under applicable Louisiana law.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case concerns the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe's effort to enjoin Louisiana state and local officials from collecting sales tax on a van purchased for use at the Tribe's casino, after an earlier dispute over mobile home taxes had been resolved. The Tribe argued that delivery of the vehicle onto tribal lands rendered the transaction one in interstate commerce or within Indian country, exempt from state taxation, and sought to amend its preliminary injunction motion accordingly. The court permitted the amendment and rejected the defendants' renewed sovereign immunity and Anti-Tax Injunction Act defenses, applying Supreme Court precedent that allows nondiscriminatory state taxation of tribal activities conducted off reservation lands absent express federal authorization to the contrary. Core reasoning focused on the location of the sales agreement and title transfer, which occurred outside tribal territory, rather than the point of delivery.

taxesfederal powercivil rights

This case involved a challenge by the Chamber of Greater Baton Rouge and related parties to the EPA's 2003 reclassification of the Baton Rouge area as a severe ozone nonattainment zone under the Clean Air Act, which triggered requirements including the sale of reformulated gasoline starting in 2004. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief in federal district court, alleging jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Clean Air Act, and the Declaratory Judgment Act. The court raised the issue of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte and determined that federal district courts possess only the limited authority granted by Congress, with no applicable waiver of the United States' sovereign immunity. It further held that a specific CAA provision, 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(2), bars judicial review of the EPA Administrator's final actions in enforcement proceedings, directing such challenges instead to another forum. The action was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

environmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a petition to revoke the probation of defendant Thomas S. Waldron, who had been convicted in 1993 of making false statements to a federally insured financial institution and received a mix of prison terms, fines, and probation on certain counts. After his release in 1998, Waldron's probation officer alleged four violations of probation conditions, including that Waldron used his son's Social Security number to obtain credit cards in order to conceal his credit activity from probation officers, which the government claimed violated 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B). Waldron stipulated to three of the violations, and following an evidentiary hearing the court found that the evidence established the remaining violation because he had falsely represented his son's SSN as his own with intent to deceive. The court therefore revoked probation, noting that it retained authority to impose any sentence originally available on the counts where imposition of sentence had been suspended. The core reasoning centered on the statutory elements of the offense and the facts showing deceptive use of the SSN to avoid detection by probation officers.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Lamar Advertising Company seeking a declaratory judgment that its insurer, Continental Casualty Company, had a duty under a commercial general liability policy to defend it and reimburse defense costs and settlement payments in an underlying lawsuit brought by RAL Construction in federal court in California. The underlying claims, based on a contract for bus shelter maintenance and construction, included breach of contract, intentional interference with contractual relations, and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. Applying Louisiana law, the court examined the policy's Coverage A for bodily injury or property damage and Coverage B for personal or advertising injury, finding that the complaint allegations did not trigger either coverage because they lacked any reference to covered occurrences like defamation or physical injury. The court granted Continental's motion for summary judgment, holding it had no duty to defend or indemnify, and denied Lamar's partial summary judgment motion.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case concerns whether Louisiana's mandatory license and tag fees on alligator farmers, used in part to fund generic state-run advertising of alligator products, violate the First Amendment rights of objecting producers. Plaintiff Pelts & Skins, which maintains its own branded marketing and opposes the generic program, sought a permanent injunction against the assessments. The court compared the program to Supreme Court precedents distinguishing between compelled advertising for mushrooms (unconstitutional) and peaches (permissible under a comprehensive regulatory scheme), concluding that the alligator regime more closely resembles the mushroom program because it does not displace competition or otherwise regulate marketing decisions. The court therefore held that the fees compel speech in violation of the First Amendment and granted the requested injunction.

free speechbusiness & regulatory

In Mitchell v. Tracer Construction Co., a Louisiana plaintiff sued his employer (a Delaware corporation headquartered in Texas) and two Louisiana co-employees for race-based discrimination, harassment, retaliation, slander, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress under state law after allegedly being subjected to racial slurs and false statements at work. The defendants removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds, asserting that the individual defendants had been fraudulently joined solely to defeat jurisdiction. The district court initiated a sua sponte review of subject-matter jurisdiction and applied the fraudulent-joinder test, which asks whether the plaintiff has any possibility of recovery against the non-diverse defendants under Louisiana law. The court examined the petition's allegations of defamatory statements and outrageous conduct in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, while noting that state anti-discrimination statutes provide no individual liability and evaluating the elements of defamation and intentional-infliction claims.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a motion by defendant International Maintenance Company to alter or amend a prior judgment in a dispute with plaintiff United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry (the Union) over enforcement of a collective bargaining agreement's grievance procedures. The underlying dispute concerned whether the Company had properly and timely appealed a decision by the General Presidents’ Committee to arbitration under Steps III and IV of the agreement, specifically regarding filing requirements and obligations to seek an arbitrator from the United States Mediation and Conciliation Service. The court denied the motion, finding that the Company had not shown grounds under Rule 59(e) to revisit the earlier ruling that the appeal was not properly filed with the Committee's Administrator and that the matter was not subject to further arbitration. The reasoning centered on the plain language of the agreement requiring an appeal to an Impartial Arbitrator, the lack of support for treating the Administrator as the proper recipient, and the distinction between the appeal step and the subsequent application for arbitration services.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a Mississippi-based wholesale tobacco dealer suing the Louisiana Secretary of Revenue to challenge a state tax statute that provided a 6% discount on taxes for tobacco (other than cigarettes) to in-state dealers and those from states with reciprocity agreements, but not to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the statute violated the Commerce Clause and an injunction against its enforcement. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act, which bars federal courts from enjoining state tax collection where adequate state remedies exist. The court reasoned that Louisiana law, specifically La.R.S. 47:1576, provides a plain, speedy, and efficient state court remedy for challenging the tax's legality, including Commerce Clause claims, even though the plaintiff argued the relief would increase tax revenues.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

This case involved a dispute between the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry (UA) and International Maintenance Company (IMC) over enforcement of a grievance decision under a collective bargaining agreement covering maintenance work at a W.R. Grace plant. The agreement established a multi-step grievance process, including review by the General Presidents’ Committee at Step III and optional impartial arbitration at Step IV; the Committee had ordered IMC to reinstate employee McKnight with back pay after his termination. IMC sought to proceed to arbitration and opposed confirmation of the award, while the union moved to confirm it under the Labor Management Relations Act. The court granted summary judgment to the union, confirming the Committee's Step III decision as binding and enforceable, and ordered IMC to reinstate McKnight with back wages and benefits.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves former teller Angella Wynn suing her employer Whitney Holding Corporation for alleged discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and Louisiana law, claiming her termination stemmed from her Multiple Sclerosis diagnosis and race. The defendant moved for summary judgment on all claims, citing undisputed facts including multiple unexplained cash shortages that violated company policy and led to her firing. The court granted summary judgment, concluding that Wynn's MS symptoms did not substantially limit a major life activity and thus did not constitute a disability under the ADA, while finding no evidence of racial discrimination or that the cash-shortage rationale was pretextual.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involves employment discrimination and retaliation claims by plaintiffs Madie Langley and L’Tanya Grimes against Capital City Press under Louisiana state laws (La.R.S. 23:332 and La.R.S. 23:967), stemming from alleged harassment by a supervisor at a work site where Pinkerton’s provided security services; claims against Pinkerton’s were settled and dismissed earlier. The court granted Capital City Press’s motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed the state-law claims with prejudice. The ruling rested on undisputed facts that Capital City Press was not Langley’s employer under the relevant statutes because it provided no compensation or benefits, and that both plaintiffs’ claims had prescribed because the suit was filed in November 2001, more than one year after the last alleged discriminatory acts in 1999.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case is a tort action in which multiple plaintiffs sued E.I. DuPont for personal injuries allegedly caused by a sulfuric acid plant process upset in 2001. The court examined subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, noting complete diversity but questioning whether all claims met the $75,000 amount-in-controversy threshold. It determined that original jurisdiction exists over the two claims exceeding the threshold and that supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 extends to the remaining plaintiffs' claims. The core reasoning is that all claims derive from the same incident and thus form part of the same Article III case or controversy, allowing the court to retain the entire action despite the lower-value claims.

proceduretorts & liability