Nauman Steele Scott

In this case, subcontractor Cal’s A/C & Electric sued general contractor Famous Construction and its surety Capitol under the Miller Act for unpaid sums on a federal construction project at a VA medical center, also seeking penalties and attorney’s fees under Louisiana state law (La.R.S. § 9:2784). The defendants moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that the Miller Act preempted the state-law claims for penalties and fees based on precedents like F.D. Rich Co. v. U.S. The court denied the motion, holding that the 1988 amendments to the Prompt Payment Act, specifically 31 U.S.C.A. § 3905(j), expressly preserve subcontractors’ rights to pursue such remedies under state law on federal projects and thereby overrule the prior preemption rulings. The decision rested on the legislative history and text of the amendments, which cross-reference the Miller Act and aim to strengthen contractor remedies without requiring amendment of the Miller Act itself.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case involves a breach of contract claim brought by Muirfield entities against Pitts and Red Oak over a letter agreement to dissolve joint partnerships (RLP and Ark-La), buy out interests in RLP, and impose conservation servitudes on land in Louisiana. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), (6), and (7), arguing lack of diversity jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and failure to join the partnerships as indispensable parties under Rule 19. The court denied the motion, holding that diversity jurisdiction was proper because the principal places of business of the key entities were in Virginia and Louisiana respectively. It further ruled that the partnerships were not indispensable parties, as all general partners were already before the court and could effectuate any relief ordered, with their interests adequately represented in the contract dispute.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves a medical malpractice claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act arising from the alleged failure by U.S. employees and independent contractor Dr. Emmanuel Witherspoon to timely diagnose brain tumors in minor Christina Romero at an Army hospital, resulting in her blindness and other injuries. After the plaintiffs settled their claims against the United States, Witherspoon filed a third-party demand seeking contribution or indemnity from the U.S. The court granted the United States' motion for summary judgment or dismissal, ruling that under Louisiana law on solidary liability the settlement released the U.S. from any contribution obligation and that tort indemnity was unavailable because any liability of Witherspoon would be based on his own actual fault rather than technical or vicarious responsibility.

torts & liabilityprocedurefederal powerhealthcare

This case concerns a third-party demand by the Bienville Parish Police Jury against the United States Postal Service and the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, seeking indemnity or contribution after a head-on collision on a parish road between a postal employee and a private driver. The underlying suit alleged negligence by the postal driver and defects in the road's design, construction, and maintenance by the Parish, which settled with the plaintiff and then pursued the federal defendants. The court denied summary judgment on the contribution claim but granted it on the indemnity claim, holding that Louisiana law does not permit tort indemnity here because the Parish's potential liability arose from its own active role in maintaining the road rather than merely passive or derivative fault.

torts & liabilityprocedurefederal power

This case involves a Miller Act lawsuit brought by subcontractor Cal’s A/C against general contractor Famous Construction Corp. in the Western District of Louisiana, seeking payment for work on a federal construction project at a VA hospital in Pineville, Louisiana. Famous moved to dismiss for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) or to transfer the case to Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), citing a forum-selection clause in its form subcontract that designated exclusive venue in Travis County, Texas. The court denied the motions, holding that 40 U.S.C. § 270b(b) mandates exclusive, non-waivable venue in the federal district where the project is located. The reasoning centered on the Miller Act’s text requiring suits to be brought “in the United States District Court for any district in which the contract was to be performed and executed and not elsewhere,” its protective purpose for subcontractors, and the conclusion that the contract clause was ambiguous, contrary to federal public policy, and therefore void.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned a motion by the Rapides Parish School Board for a declaratory judgment on the validity of an amendment to Article 8, § 13 of the Louisiana Constitution and Act 973 of 1995, which authorized creation of the North Rapides Independent School District in Wards 9, 10, and 11. The court granted the motion and held the provisions invalid. It reasoned that the proposed district split would obstruct ongoing desegregation of a former dual school system by creating racially identifiable schools, violating federal constitutional requirements that state law must yield under the Supremacy Clause when it hinders elimination of de jure segregation.

civil rightsfederal power

The case involved a dispute between Philip Baptiste and George Khoury over authorship and royalties for the song "Sea of Love." Baptiste claimed Khoury fraudulently added his name to a 1959 contract assigning rights to a publisher and sought to enjoin Khoury from collecting royalties while recovering past payments. The court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), holding that the claims primarily raised state-law issues of contract and fraud rather than remedies or questions arising under federal copyright law. Resolution of the state-law questions would dispose of the case without needing to interpret the Copyright Act, as established in precedents like T.B. Harms Co. v. Eliscu.

federal powerpropertyprocedure

The case involved a claim by Debra Landry for $100,000 in accidental death benefits under a policy she purchased from J.C. Penney Life Insurance Company after her husband died in a single-vehicle accident. The policy contained an exclusion barring benefits for losses caused by the insured's intoxication. The court held that Landry was not entitled to recover because the exclusion was part of the contract and factually applied. It reasoned that the insurer met its burden to prove constructive delivery of the policy through its standard and reliable mailing practices to agents, and that the husband's blood alcohol level of .25% established intoxication that caused or contributed to the fatal crash under Louisiana law.

business & regulatory

This case involved a dispute over whether an insurance company, Scottsdale, had a duty to defend its insureds (Larco and related parties) against claims of patent infringement, unfair trade practices, and misappropriation of trade secrets brought by Rymal and Poscon. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana held that Scottsdale was obligated to provide a defense for all claims in the suit. The court applied Louisiana insurance law, which requires an insurer to defend if the pleadings show even a possibility of coverage under the policy, and found that the ambiguous 'Advertising Injury Liability' endorsement could reasonably be interpreted to cover the claims through terms like 'piracy' or 'unfair competition.' Because the policy language was unclear, it was construed against the insurer, triggering the duty to defend even before final determination of coverage or liability.

business & regulatory

This case concerned whether Elizabeth Edmundson's notices to the IRS about an upcoming foreclosure sale on mortgaged property were adequate under federal law, such that the IRS's junior tax lien on the property would be extinguished. The court held that the notices were sufficient and the lien did not survive the sale after the redemption period expired. It found that Edmundson had made good-faith efforts to comply, supplied the required details about the property, taxpayer, and sale, and that the IRS had actual knowledge of the sale date. The decision rested on the conclusion that the Treasury regulation's notice requirements were unduly burdensome and ambiguous, allowing the IRS to exploit technical deficiencies despite receiving the essential information.

taxespropertyfederal power

This case involved service providers (Gardes Directional Drilling, LAJFP Drilling, and Marine Transportation Services) who were not paid for work on an unsuccessful oil well drilled on the Outer Continental Shelf under a lease held by Kerr-McGee and other owners. After the lease expired and the U.S. Department of the Interior ordered removal of the equipment, the providers filed liens under Louisiana's Oil, Gas, and Water Well Lien Act (incorporated via the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act) and sought to hold the owners personally liable for the unpaid amounts when the equipment was dismantled. The court granted summary judgment to the owners and denied Marine's partial summary judgment motion, ruling that the Lien Act creates only an in rem remedy against the property itself and imposes no personal liability on the owners. The decision rested on the principle that OCSLA extends state law as surrogate federal law only to the extent it is consistent, and the statute's plain terms and related precedent limit remedies to seizure of the liened property, which the plaintiffs failed to pursue in time despite notice of the removal order.

propertyprocedurefederal powerbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a dispute over two leases for property in Lafayette, Louisiana, on which the defendant, Headrick Outdoor, Inc., had erected billboards; the plaintiff, Leon Chastant, sought to terminate the leases for nonpayment of rent and determine ownership of the structures. The court found that Chastant was entitled to terminate both leases because Headrick had repeatedly paid rent late—approximately one to four months past the due dates of October and January, respectively—based on the lease terms, payment histories, and company records. However, under Louisiana Civil Code article 493, the court held that Headrick retained ownership of the billboards and had ninety days from the finality of the judgment to remove them and restore the land, or alternatively to agree on a purchase by Chastant; Headrick also owed rent until removal. The decision rested on findings that lease cancellation for nonpayment requires a court order and that prior notice satisfied statutory requirements.

property

This case is a maritime tort action brought by plaintiff Richard Viator against his employer, Gordon’s Trucking Company, under the Jones Act and general maritime law for personal injuries sustained while piloting the barge MINDY II on Bayou Teche. Viator was struck by tree limbs from an excavator operated by a Sea Shell employee under a service contract with Gordon’s. The court found that Viator qualified as a Jones Act seaman based on his regular and continuous duties piloting the barge, that Sea Shell’s negligence was the sole cause of the injuries due to the excavator operator’s impaired visibility and failure to communicate, that the barge was seaworthy, and that the excavator operator remained a Sea Shell employee rather than becoming Gordon’s borrowed servant because Sea Shell retained control. As a result, the indemnity claim and damages issues were moot given Viator’s prior settlement with Sea Shell.

torts & liabilitylabor & employment

This case arose from a dispute over land development partnerships involving properties called Eagle Bend and Australia Island, where plaintiffs Larry Crowe and related parties alleged that defendants including bank directors, law partners, and others engaged in a fraudulent scheme from 1985 to 1990 to divest them of their interests through manipulated legal proceedings, bankruptcies, foreclosures, and partnership actions. The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the civil RICO claims as barred by the four-year statute of limitations. The court reviewed the factual background of the partnership formation, alleged misconduct, and subsequent RTC involvement, then analyzed various circuit court precedents on RICO claim accrual rules, including discovery rules tied to predicate acts. It adopted aspects of the Keystone accrual approach for subsequent predicate acts while rejecting extensions based on further injury, to determine timeliness under the Clayton Act's four-year period.

criminal lawprocedurebusiness & regulatoryproperty

Wesley Brown sued the United States and the City of Oakdale after tripping on an exposed tree root on a divider between the curb and sidewalk in front of the Oakdale Post Office, seeking damages for injuries to his shoulder and elbow under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The court applied Louisiana negligence law, including a duty/risk analysis and premises liability rules for invitees, and found that the United States owed no duty to warn of or remedy the roots because the hazard was obvious, known to the plaintiff from his regular visits, and a natural condition. It also ruled that the city could not be held strictly liable under La. Civ. Code art. 2317 because it lacked actual or constructive knowledge of the specific defect and had no opportunity to fix it. The court therefore entered judgment for both defendants.

torts & liability

This case arose from complex land development deals involving Eagle Bend and Australia Island properties, where plaintiffs alleged a fraudulent scheme by a bank and its partners to divest them of interests, followed by RTC's involvement as receiver for the failed bank and its rejection of plaintiffs' repurchase bid. RTC moved to dismiss claims asserting violations of federal statutes on fair bidding and asset disposition practices. The court focused on whether 12 U.S.C. § 1441a(a)(14)(B)(viii) and related FIRREA provisions create a private right of action, analyzing congressional intent, the statute's text, and comparisons to FDIC authority under the same framework, ultimately concluding no such right exists for these claims.

business & regulatoryfederal powerpropertyprocedure

In King v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours, plaintiffs who operated a miniature rose nursery sued Du Pont, Platte Chemical, and Terra International, alleging that a contaminated Benlate fungicide damaged their plants and seeking exemplary damages based on misrepresentation claims and Louisiana Civil Code article 2315.3. The court granted partial summary judgment dismissing the exemplary damages claims under misrepresentation, ruling that Louisiana law applied and no statute authorized such damages for misrepresentation. The court denied summary judgment on the article 2315.3 claim, finding disputed facts as to whether defendants engaged in the storage, handling, or transportation of hazardous substances that could trigger the statute's authorization of exemplary damages for wanton or reckless disregard of public safety.

torts & liability

This case concerns a lawsuit by Larry D. Crowe and associated parties against numerous defendants, including bank officers, attorneys, and directors, alleging a fraudulent scheme to strip Crowe of his ownership interests in properties known as Eagle Bend and Australia Island through various legal and financial tactics after forming partnerships for development. The defendants filed motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and for summary judgment, arguing grounds including the D'Oench, Duhme doctrine and related statutes that protect the interests of the Resolution Trust Corporation in bank assets. The court analyzed the factual background of the land deals, partnerships, and alleged actions from 1985 to 1990, and applied legal standards to determine the validity of the claims against the various groups of defendants.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

Plaintiffs Larry and Marilyn Black sued under the Jones Act for personal injuries Larry Black suffered while working on an inland drilling barge owned by his employer, Rebstock Drilling Company. After Rebstock and its insurers became insolvent, the plaintiffs sought coverage from the Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association (LIGA) under the Insurance Guaranty Association Act. The court considered stipulated facts showing the injury resulted from crew negligence and vessel unseaworthiness, with agreed damages of $150,000 subject to LIGA's statutory cap, and analyzed whether a workers' compensation policy with a maritime endorsement constituted excluded "ocean marine" insurance. The core reasoning focused on 1989 statutory amendments defining ocean marine insurance to include policies covering maritime risks like Jones Act liability, determining these amendments were interpretive and thus retroactively applicable, while also addressing the status of surplus lines insurers and cut-through endorsements.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This Louisiana diversity case arose from the termination of Delta's farm equipment dealership following IH's sale of its division to Case, leading Delta to sue IH and Case on multiple claims including breach of contract, third-party beneficiary rights, and breach of good faith. After the Fifth Circuit reversed summary judgments and directed a remand solely to determine damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees to the extent appropriate, the defendants moved under Rule 12(b)(6) (treated as a Rule 12(c) motion) to dismiss the attorneys' fees claim. The district court granted the motion, holding that Louisiana Civil Code Article 1997 does not permit recovery of attorneys' fees as damages for bad faith breach of contract absent an express statutory or contractual provision authorizing them, and that the Fifth Circuit's limited remand did not decide the issue. The court reasoned that the legislature's choice to include fees in other statutes but not Article 1997 precludes judicial addition of such a remedy.

business & regulatoryprocedure