This case involves a premises liability claim brought by plaintiff Irma Nettles Jones against Hancock Holding Company and its insurer under Louisiana Civil Code articles 2317, 2317.1, and 2322. Jones alleges she was injured in a trip-and-fall incident on July 15, 2004, when exiting a mis-leveled elevator on the third floor of Hancock's building. Both sides moved for summary judgment, with defendants arguing that Jones could not establish a defect posing an unreasonable risk of harm, Hancock's actual or constructive knowledge of any defect, or a failure to exercise reasonable care, while Jones claimed she had satisfied all required elements. The court denied both motions, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the elevator's condition, Hancock's knowledge, and the exercise of reasonable care that precluded judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
This case involved an employee of the Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission who alleged race discrimination and retaliation under federal law after his Director of Operations position was eliminated following his successful appeal of an earlier layoff to the Louisiana Civil Service Commission and his filing of EEOC charges. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the employment actions were legitimate and not retaliatory. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and denied the motion, finding that the summary judgment evidence raised genuine disputes of material fact about whether the stated reasons for abolishing the position and issuing a negative performance evaluation were pretextual.
The case involves the Firefighters' Retirement System, a Louisiana state pension fund, suing Regions Bank, Morgan Asset Management, and an individual advisor in state court over alleged misleading sales and mismanagement of investments in a high-income mutual fund, asserting claims under Louisiana securities law, fiduciary duty, contract, tort, and related doctrines. The defendants had removed the action to federal court, prompting the plaintiff's motion to remand or abstain. The court granted the motion and remanded the case to the 19th Judicial District Court for East Baton Rouge Parish. It reasoned that the claims arise solely under state law without a substantial disputed federal issue necessary to the resolution of the claims, that federal securities references serve only as factual guideposts, and that SLUSA's exception for state pension plans plus principles of comity and federal-state balance favored state-court adjudication.
This case arose from a dispute among law firms over the allocation of a $9.7 million attorneys' fee award from a 1995 Louisiana state court class action settlement. After the settling firms filed a petition of intervention in state court to divide the fees, the out-of-state defendant firms removed the matter to federal court on diversity grounds under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The intervening firms moved to remand, arguing that removal was barred by the one-year limit in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) because the underlying action had begun more than a decade earlier. The court denied the motion to remand, holding that the intervention petition constituted an independent civil action between diverse parties that was properly removable, analogous to a garnishment proceeding.
This interpleader action was filed by American General Life Insurance Company to determine the rightful beneficiary of two life insurance policies on John Henry Wilkes, with competing claims from his wife Evelyn Jackson Wilkes (the named beneficiary on the change of beneficiary forms) and his daughter Queen Ester Wilkes Hinkle. The court granted summary judgment to Evelyn Jackson Wilkes. Under Louisiana Civil Code article 1926, a contract by a noninterdicted person can be challenged after death for incapacity only if it is gratuitous, shows lack of understanding, was executed within 30 days of death, or an interdiction proceeding was pending; none of these conditions applied here, and Hinkle provided no admissible evidence of incapacity or a properly pleaded fraud claim that would allow bypassing the statutory limits.
The case involved parents of a student expelled from the Livingston Parish school system for alleged possession of a controlled substance who sought a temporary restraining order requiring the school board and state education officials to provide him alternative education or reinstate access to public schooling. The plaintiffs claimed the expulsion violated due process because the student received no pre-expulsion hearing and was denied alternative education despite a waiver granted to the district. The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order, holding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. Louisiana law under LSA-R.S. 17:416 provides for immediate suspension, a hearing before the superintendent or designee, appeals to the school board, and further review in state district court, which the court found satisfied the procedural due process requirements recognized in Goss v. Lopez. The court also noted that the plaintiffs had not shown irreparable harm justifying immediate judicial intervention before exhausting available administrative remedies.