Morey Leonard Sear

In this patent litigation, Papst accused IBM of infringing its patents through the use of hard drive motors manufactured by Minebea under a license from Papst. IBM raised an affirmative defense claiming the patents were unenforceable due to Papst's inequitable conduct before the Patent and Trademark Office, including failure to disclose prior art and making misrepresentations. Papst moved to strike this defense under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), arguing that it lacked the particularity required by Rule 9(b) for allegations of fraud. The court determined that IBM's defense was insufficiently specific as it failed to detail the time, place, and nature of the alleged misconduct, and that facts provided outside the pleading could not cure the deficiency, but granted IBM leave to amend its answer by a specified date.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involves consolidated actions by Ronald Schultz, a welder/fitter employed at Louisiana Dock's barge repair facility on the Mississippi River, who sued Louisiana Dock and ACBL under the Jones Act and general maritime law for injuries sustained while inspecting and repairing barges. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Schultz was not a seaman and thus ineligible for those remedies, leaving him with claims only under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. The court applied the two-prong Chandris test for seaman status, finding that while Schultz may have contributed to vessel functions, he lacked a substantial connection to any identifiable vessel or fleet of vessels, as his work was land-based, involved random assignments across various barges without voyages, and he did not eat, sleep, or travel on the vessels. Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants.

labor & employmentprocedure

This multidistrict litigation involved Louisiana insurance agents suing Texas and Louisiana law firms and attorneys, alleging that the defendants' joint solicitations of New York Life policyholders—through ads, mailings, and meetings—misrepresented policies as worthless and caused policy cancellations that harmed the agents' business. The defendants removed the cases to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction, claiming the Louisiana defendants were fraudulently joined because no valid claim existed against them. The court granted the plaintiffs' motions to remand, holding that the Louisiana defendants were not fraudulently joined since the complaints could support causes of action for defamation and invasion of privacy under applicable state law, precluding diversity jurisdiction. It denied attorney fees but granted costs associated with the removal.

proceduretorts & liability

This multidistrict litigation involves consumer claims by owners of 1983-1990 Ford Bronco II vehicles alleging a design defect that makes the vehicles prone to rollover, seeking damages and equitable relief under the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and state law but not for personal injuries or deaths. The court had previously rejected a similar proposed class settlement in 1995 after a fairness hearing, finding the $4 million in requested attorney fees excessive relative to limited discovery and class benefits, which suggested possible collusion. In this order, the court declined to grant even preliminary approval to a new 1997 proposed settlement or allow notice to the class, citing the same concerns over disproportionate fees, minimal recovery for plaintiffs, and indications that the fee provisions did not eliminate the appearance of collusion, despite counsel's deference to the court's fee determination. The ruling followed review of the settlement terms, public statements by counsel, and conferences with the parties.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves a franchise dispute in which plaintiffs sued America’s Favorite Chicken Company and Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce for claims including breach of contract, detrimental reliance, violation of Louisiana’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, tortious interference, and abuse of rights. After the court granted summary judgment dismissing all claims under Louisiana law, plaintiffs moved for reconsideration, arguing for the first time that Michigan law should apply and submitting new documents related to a counterclaim for an accounting. The court treated the motion as one under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and denied it, finding the choice-of-law argument untimely because it could have been raised earlier in extensive prior briefing. Even assuming Michigan law applied, the court determined that Michigan choice-of-law rules would still require Louisiana law due to express choice-of-law clauses in the franchise agreements selecting Louisiana. The court also concluded that the newly submitted documents did not justify reconsideration under the applicable standards for untimely evidence.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involves franchisees of Popeyes restaurants in Detroit suing America’s Favorite Chicken Company (AFC) and Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) over marketing strategies following the 1989 merger of Popeyes and Church’s Fried Chicken. The plaintiffs alleged breach of express and implied contract, promissory estoppel, violations of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act, tortious interference, abuse of rights, and conspiracy, claiming a dual-marketing approach harmed their stores by positioning Church’s as lower-scale competitors. The court granted summary judgment to both defendants on all claims, holding that the franchise agreements unambiguously permitted AFC to operate other systems like Church’s, that no reasonable reliance was shown on any alleged promises, and that the remaining tort and statutory claims lacked evidentiary support under applicable Louisiana law. The decision applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 standards, finding no genuine issues of material fact after reviewing the record.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved the United States seeking reimbursement from Conoco, Inc. for costs incurred by the Coast Guard in monitoring two oil spills from Conoco's pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. The court granted the United States' motion for summary judgment, allowing recovery of the monitoring costs as "removal costs," and denied Conoco's cross-motion. The court reasoned that the OPA broadly defines "removal" to include actions necessary to minimize or mitigate damage to public health or welfare, authorizes the government to monitor private cleanup efforts under 33 U.S.C. § 1321(c), and holds the responsible party strictly liable for such costs, with the agency's interpretation entitled to Chevron deference.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

In this case, plaintiff Barbara Sherman sued defendant Gulf Pride Marine Services, Inc. in Louisiana state court for personal injuries allegedly sustained as a seaman on one of its vessels, after Gulf Pride had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Gulf Pride removed the Jones Act suit to federal district court based on bankruptcy 'related to' jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334, but the court initially remanded it sua sponte on the ground that Jones Act cases filed in state court are not removable. On reconsideration, the court determined that bankruptcy jurisdiction existed because the suit's outcome could conceivably affect the bankruptcy estate through insurance coverage issues or claims against the estate. The court further held that the remand order was reviewable because it addressed a defect in removal procedure, and Fifth Circuit precedent precluded sua sponte remands on such grounds under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The court therefore granted the motion for reconsideration and vacated the remand order.

proceduretorts & liability

This multidistrict litigation consolidated multiple consumer class actions alleging that 1983-1990 Ford Bronco II vehicles had a design defect making them prone to rollover, with claims that Ford knew of the issue, concealed it, and made fraudulent advertisements; plaintiffs asserted federal claims under the Lanham and Magnuson-Moss Acts plus various state law claims for fraud, warranty breaches, strict liability, negligence, and unfair trade practices. After prior partial dismissals, the court addressed Ford's motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), which argued that the remaining state common law claims were impliedly preempted by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 because NHTSA had decided against issuing stability standards for light utility vehicles. The court applied the 12(c) standard treating allegations as true, reviewed the Safety Act's text and legislative history emphasizing that compliance with federal standards does not bar common law actions, and analyzed NHTSA's regulatory history showing no conflicting federal standard on vehicle stability or consumer information that would preempt the claims.

torts & liabilityfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a plaintiff's request for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act after prevailing in an action to waive recovery of incorrectly paid Social Security benefits. The plaintiff objected to a magistrate judge's recommendation capping fees at the statutory $75 per hour rate, seeking an inflation-adjusted rate of $115.39 per hour based on the cost of living and market rates. The court denied the objection and adopted the $75 per hour award plus costs, holding that Fifth Circuit precedent in Hall v. Shalala did not support an increase. The reasoning relied on Baker v. Bowen, which permits but does not require cost-of-living adjustments only when necessary for adequate representation, and Pierce v. Underwood, which narrowly limits special factors justifying higher rates beyond general inflation or market considerations.

procedure

This admiralty case involved a claim by cargo owner Minerais against stevedore Turner for damage to shipments of high-grade and low-grade ferrochrome carried from Turkey to New Orleans. Minerais alleged that Turner’s improper stowage on a barge caused the two visually identical grades to commingle, forcing downgrading and reduced resale value; Turner denied liability and pointed to others. After a bench trial the court made detailed findings of fact, including that Turner had been instructed to keep the lots separate, knew of that requirement, yet stowed them only about twenty feet apart in unmarked piles without barriers. The court further found that commingling occurred and calculated damages based on the difference between the market value of the high-grade material and the lower value of the commingled product.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Travelers Health Network of Louisiana (THNL), a federally qualified HMO, suing the Orleans Parish School Board (OPSB) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. THNL claimed that OPSB violated the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 by refusing to offer THNL's HMO as an employee health benefit option after THNL submitted a timely request. The court denied THNL's motion for a preliminary injunction and granted OPSB's motion to dismiss, holding that the HMO Act does not create a private right enforceable through § 1983. The reasoning centered on the lack of congressional intent to allow such suits by HMOs against employers, as the Act's enforcement mechanisms involve federal oversight rather than individual litigation.

healthcarefederal powercivil rightsbusiness & regulatory

In Chouest v. American Airlines, Inc., plaintiffs sued in state court for personal injuries sustained by Jefferson Chouest when a tour bus door closed on his arm during ground transportation included in an airline vacation package, with claims for medical expenses, pain, and loss of enjoyment. American Airlines removed the case to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction based on preemption under the Airline Deregulation Act. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that the removing defendant failed to demonstrate to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy exceeded the $50,000 jurisdictional threshold for diversity and that the state-law tort claims were not preempted by federal aviation law so as to create federal question jurisdiction. The court did not address the plaintiffs' separate argument that removal was procedurally defective due to failure of all defendants to join.

proceduretorts & liabilityfederal power

In this diversity case, Rhonda Labiche suffered permanent brain damage from alleged medical malpractice, leading to a settlement that included funds for her past medical expenses; her husband then sued the family's major medical insurer, Legal Security Life Insurance, which had paid $250,000 in benefits and claimed conventional subrogation to those settlement proceeds. The court held that Legal Security must pay a proportionate share of the reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs incurred in obtaining the recovery. The reasoning relied on Louisiana precedent from Moody v. Arabie, under which partial subrogation creates a co-ownership relationship between the insured and the subrogated insurer in the underlying tort cause of action, requiring shared expenses to avoid unjust enrichment, with additional support from equitable principles and analogous cases applying the same rule outside workers' compensation.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

This case is a consolidated appeal from the bankruptcy court's dismissal of two adversary proceedings filed by Chapter 11 debtor Billy Ray Eubanks against Esenjay Petroleum Corporation after confirmation of his reorganization plan. The proceedings concerned pre-confirmation disputes over rights to oil and gas leases in Mississippi, including a claim for specific performance and accounting under a 1964 joint operating agreement and a claim to rescind unauthorized transfers of property interests. The district court determined that the matters fell within the broad grant of bankruptcy jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) but that abstention under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1) was appropriate because the claims did not affect the handling or administration of the estate, the plan provided for distributions from a cash fund derived from producing properties, and post-confirmation jurisdiction should not extend to indefinite supervision of the reorganized business.

procedurefederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case is an appeal from the Bankruptcy Court of the Eastern District of Louisiana, where debtor Cherie Ward challenged the denial of her claims for exempt property under Louisiana statute LSA-R.S. 13:3881 after the trustee sought summary judgment. Ward had filed voluminous schedules listing over 1,500 items for exemption, many of which fell outside the statute's specific categories such as certain household goods, tools, and personal items. The district court found the claims were not made in good faith due to their excessive scope and lack of specificity, making review impractical, but held that amendments to the schedules could be allowed under Bankruptcy Rule 1009(a) absent bad faith by the debtor or prejudice to creditors. The court remanded the matter to the bankruptcy court to assess whether any proposed amendment meets this standard and to evaluate qualifying claims accordingly.

propertyprocedure

The case involves claims by a welder and his family for injuries sustained in a fall at a dock facility in Louisiana while performing repair work, originally filed in state court against Kaiser Aluminum and two employees, then amended to add the plaintiff's employer Volks as a defendant with a maritime tort claim under the LHWCA. The court addressed multiple motions including dismissal of the individual defendants, summary judgment requests by Kaiser and Volks on issues such as statutory employer status under the Louisiana Workers' Compensation Act, independent contractor liability, and strict liability, cross-motions by insurers, and a request for a jury trial. It dismissed the claims against the two individual defendants as fraudulently joined and analyzed the exclusivity of workers' compensation remedies along with related procedural and jurisdictional questions arising from diversity and admiralty claims.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

This case arose from a 1989 bicycle accident in which minor Jeremy Severtson was injured by a car after an allegedly illegally parked U.S. government vehicle obstructed visibility; his parents filed an FTCA administrative claim that was denied, then sued in federal court for damages including medical expenses. Blue Cross/Blue Shield, which had paid some medical costs under an insurance policy, moved to intervene as subrogee seeking reimbursement from any recovery. The government moved to dismiss the intervenor's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that the insurer failed to file its own administrative claim within the FTCA's two-year limitations period. The court denied the motion, holding that the original claim by the insureds had already notified the government of the medical-expense component and that the intervenor's complaint related back without enlarging the claim.

federal powerproceduretorts & liability

This case involves plaintiffs Chef Paul Prudhomme and Tasso Travel, Inc. suing Procter & Gamble and Folgers Coffee for trademark infringement, invasion of privacy, and unfair competition due to a television commercial that used an actor resembling Prudhomme to promote coffee without consent, implying his endorsement. The defendants moved to dismiss the claims for failure to state a claim or alternatively for a more definite statement. The court denied the motion, finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged a likelihood of consumer confusion under the Lanham Act by adapting the standard factors to look-alike scenarios, and that the other claims also met pleading requirements when allegations are taken as true. The court also determined that the complaint was not so vague as to require a more definite statement since defendants could respond to it.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case was a limitation of liability proceeding under maritime law filed by Waterman Steamship Corporation and AmSouth Bank after a 1991 engine room fire aboard the S/S Stonewall Jackson killed six crew members. Petitioners had set the limitation fund at approximately $7.85 million based on the value of the vessel and its pending freight, but claimants moved to increase it by including the value of 89 LASH barges carried on the ship as well as stores, bunkers, and other appurtenances. The court granted the motion, ruling that the flotilla doctrine required surrender of all vessels engaged in a common venture, as held in controlling Fifth Circuit precedent such as Agrico Chemical Co. v. S/S Atlantic Forest, and that appurtenances must also be included in the fund's value.

proceduretorts & liability