Donald Ellsworth Walter

In Hussain v. Garson, plaintiff Sunny Z. Hussain sued his former investment broker Gregory S. Garson for alleged misconduct including negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and violations of securities laws, stemming from advice to invest heavily in stock of Performance Health Technologies, Inc. as part of an alleged pump-and-dump scheme. The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or, alternatively, to stay proceedings under the Federal Arbitration Act based on arbitration clauses in brokerage account applications signed by Hussain. The court granted the motion to stay, holding that the arbitration agreements were valid and enforceable, covered all controversies relating to the accounts and transactions, and applied to Garson as the designated broker, with a strong presumption of arbitrability requiring that the claims be resolved through arbitration rather than litigation.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved an inmate at David Wade Correctional Center who sued prison officials alleging that the chaplain refused to purchase religious materials for his practice of Hermetic Gnosticism, seeking equivalent resources to those provided for other religions. The plaintiff initiated the prison's administrative grievance process but filed his federal lawsuit before completing the required steps and receiving a final decision from the Secretary. The court denied the motion for preliminary injunction and granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint with prejudice to refiling in forma pauperis, because federal law requires prisoners to exhaust all available administrative remedies before bringing suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the plaintiff had not done so at the time of filing.

religious libertycivil rightsprocedure

In Cryer v. United States, plaintiff Tommy K. Cryer sued the United States under 26 U.S.C. § 7431, alleging that IRS special agents wrongfully disclosed return information by informing third parties that Cryer was the subject of a criminal investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office and a grand jury. The district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court reasoned that the written communications did not disclose any “return information” as defined in § 6103(b)(2)(A), and the oral disclosures either failed to involve return information or were authorized under the investigative purposes exception in § 6103(k)(6). The court also dismissed claims related to grand jury proceedings under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6.

taxescriminal law

The case involves a plaintiff who sued a chemical company in Louisiana state court for personal injuries allegedly caused by exposure to toxic chemicals from a plant failure, seeking damages including medical expenses, pain and suffering, and lost earning capacity. The defendant removed the action to federal court under diversity jurisdiction, asserting that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The plaintiff moved to remand, relying on allegations and a post-removal stipulation that damages were below the jurisdictional threshold. The court denied the motion to remand, holding that the defendant had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy requirement was satisfied at the time of removal and that subsequent stipulations could not divest federal jurisdiction.

proceduretorts & liability

In United States v. Gentry, defendant Nicholas Gentry filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the loss calculation used in his sentencing for armed bank robbery and for not filing a direct appeal. The court granted the motion in part, ordering a new sentencing hearing after finding that the presentence report improperly included the officer's medical and workers' compensation costs as well as home repair expenses in the loss amount, consistent with the Fifth Circuit's reversal of two co-defendants' sentences on the same issue; this resulted in an overstated guidelines range of 188-235 months instead of the correct 168-210 months. The claim regarding failure to consult about an appeal was denied as moot. The magistrate judge's recommendation, adopted by the district court, rested on the evidentiary hearing establishing counsel's lack of objection and the legal error in the loss calculation under applicable guidelines and precedent.

criminal lawprocedure

Ezrell C. Holmes, a pro se plaintiff, appealed an IRS Determination from a Collection Due Process Hearing after the agency assessed $500 frivolous return penalties against him for amending his 1998-2000 tax returns to report zero income and claim refunds despite evidence of taxable wages. Holmes alleged the determination was erroneous because he was denied a hearing. The district court granted the United States' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the claims. The court found that Holmes received advance notice of the October 23, 2003 telephone hearing, contacted the settlement officer the day before to reschedule due to work, but then failed to respond to multiple follow-up attempts over two weeks, allowing the IRS to review the case file and proceed with collection. Review was for abuse of discretion under 26 U.S.C. § 6330, and the court concluded the IRS did not abuse its discretion.

taxesprocedure

This case involved National Union Fire Insurance and Lorillard Tobacco suing Hibernia National Bank after an employee of Lorillard stole over $1.7 million by depositing bogus reimbursement drafts payable to retailers into his personal accounts at the bank. The plaintiffs asserted claims for negligence, recklessness, and bad faith under Louisiana statutes LA-R.S. 10:3-404, 10:3-405, and 10:3-406, plus a claim for money had and received. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the negligence claims. It granted the defendant's motion in part by dismissing the money had and received claim, which was treated as a barred conversion action under LA-R.S. 10:3-420 because Lorillard was the issuer of the instruments, and denied the rest of the motion as moot or unsupported on the remaining issues. The rulings turned on the absence of genuine issues of material fact for some claims, the statutory bars for others, and the need for further proceedings on the negligence allegations.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a dispute over ownership of mineral servitudes on approximately 180,000 acres of land in Louisiana that had been sold to the United States for national forest purposes in the 1930s. Petro-Hunt and related companies sued the United States, seeking a declaration that they hold exclusive, perpetual ownership of the mineral rights based on conveyances from the 1930s and a prior Fifth Circuit decision in United States v. Nebo Oil Co. The district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, ruling that the mineral servitudes are imprescriptible and that the plaintiffs are their exclusive owners in perpetuity. The core reasoning relied on the doctrine of res judicata, finding that the issues had been conclusively decided in the earlier Nebo Oil litigation involving substantially similar facts, parties or their privies, and legal questions about the application of Louisiana mineral servitude rules and Act 315 of 1940 to lands acquired by the federal government.

propertyfederal power

The case involved defendant Curtis Wharton's motion to suppress physical evidence, including items from his rental car and other belongings seized from the US Embassy in Haiti, that an FBI agent took without a warrant in February 2000 before a search warrant was later obtained in the US. The court denied the renewed motion to suppress, finding that the agent's actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The core reasoning was that the warrantless seizure was reasonable and limited under the circumstances, given uncertainties about a US court's authority to issue a warrant for property in Haiti, and that the exclusionary rule applies only to deter unlawful police conduct rather than to all evidence from any seizure.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a dispute between the plaintiffs and defendant Hom/Ade Foods, Inc. that had been removed from state court to federal court. The plaintiffs moved to remand the matter back to state court, a motion granted by the magistrate judge. The defendants appealed that ruling. After review, the district court determined that the magistrate judge's decision was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law under Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). The court therefore dismissed the appeal and ordered the action remanded to the First Judicial District Court in Caddo Parish, Louisiana.

procedure

The case concerned a consumer who discovered fraudulent credit accounts, including one issued by Bank of Louisiana (BOL) for a Nailco supplier account, after identity theft in 1996. Despite notifying BOL and providing requested documentation, the plaintiff alleged that BOL failed to promptly or accurately report the fraud to credit bureaus, causing the account to remain on her reports with negative notations and leading to repeated credit denials by lenders such as Citibank and Student Loan Servicing Center. She sued BOL for negligence, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, unfair trade practices, and violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b). The court denied BOL's motion for summary judgment, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether BOL had properly notified the bureaus of the fraud and fulfilled its duties under the FCRA, precluding judgment as a matter of law.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involves plaintiff Verien Whitesides, a victim of credit card fraud in 1996, who sued Experian (as successor to TRW) after inaccurate information about fraudulent accounts like the Nailco account continued to appear on her credit reports through 1999, resulting in repeated credit denials by lenders such as Citibank and SLSC. She asserted claims for negligence, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, and violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) including a request for punitive damages. Experian moved for summary judgment, arguing it could not be liable for TRW's actions, that pre-1997 claims were time-barred, that there was no evidence of malice or willful intent, and that punitive damages were unavailable as a matter of law. The court denied the motion in full, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed, particularly on whether Experian's continued reporting of errors despite repeated notifications could support a finding of willful FCRA noncompliance under 15 U.S.C. § 1681n.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned plaintiffs' demand for payment on a $100,000 certificate of deposit issued by the predecessor bank in 1987 and presented for payment in 1999, which the defendant bank refused on the ground that the claim had prescribed. The court first confirmed diversity jurisdiction, holding that a national bank is a citizen only of the state of its principal place of business and not of every state where it maintains a branch. On the motion to dismiss based on prescription, the magistrate judge recommended denial because the CD was marked nontransferable, placing it outside the scope of negotiable instruments governed by the five-year liberative prescription of Louisiana Civil Code article 3498 and the UCC, so that the defense did not appear on the face of the complaint.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, plaintiffs Mary and Steven Grenier sued the manufacturer of silicone breast implants, alleging local complications including gel bleed, migration, capsular contracture, rupture, and related pain after Mary received the implants in 1983 and underwent explantation in 1994. The court first held that the Louisiana Products Liability Act governed the claims because the cause of action arose after the statute's 1988 enactment. Applying that Act, the court concluded the plaintiffs could not show the implants were unreasonably dangerous in construction, design, or warnings, nor establish other required elements of liability. The court therefore granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment on all counts and dismissed the claims with prejudice, which also defeated the derivative loss-of-consortium claim.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Sandra Brashears applied for Supplemental Security Income benefits based on paranoid schizophrenia, diabetes, hypertension, and related conditions, but the ALJ denied the claim in part due to her non-compliance with prescribed medication. The district court remanded the case to the Commissioner of Social Security under sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings to receive new evidence on the reasons for non-compliance and to apply 20 C.F.R. § 404.1530. The court determined that the ALJ's decision relied heavily on non-compliance, the existing record did not adequately address its cause, and newly presented evidence suggested a possible reasonable excuse tied to her mental impairment.

healthcarefederal powerprocedure

The case involved a wheelchair-bound plaintiff injured when her husband lost control of her wheelchair while descending steps at a non-accessible post office, after repeated requests for accessibility improvements. Plaintiffs sued the United States and Postal Service under the Architectural Barriers Act, Rehabilitation Act, and Federal Tort Claims Act, seeking damages for negligence and loss of consortium. The court dismissed the Architectural Barriers Act and Rehabilitation Act claims along with the husband's FTCA claim but allowed the wife's FTCA claim to proceed, determining that genuine issues of material fact existed as to the government's duty of reasonable care under Louisiana law and that the discretionary function exception to the FTCA did not bar the claim.

civil rightstorts & liabilityfederal power

This case involved a dispute between Dogwood Grocery, Inc. and its flood insurer, South Carolina Insurance Company, over a claim for damage from flooding on April 27, 1997. The plaintiff had previously received payment for an earlier April 4 flood under the same policy but submitted a new proof of loss for the later date more than 60 days after the loss. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the claims, reasoning that federal flood insurance policies require strict compliance with the 60-day proof of loss deadline, which was not met here, and that a paid claim cannot be reopened based on later discoveries.

business & regulatorypropertyfederal power

Plaintiff Wanda Faye Hunt sued bail bondsmen Steve Dement, Dan Reckentald, Mark Robbins, and Steve Dement Bail Bonds, Inc. under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants violated her constitutional rights by entering and searching her home without a warrant in pursuit of a fugitive. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that they had not acted under color of state law. The court reviewed the magistrate's recommendation de novo, applied the two-part Lugar test for state action, and concluded that although Louisiana law recognizes bondsmen's arrest powers, the defendants' conduct was purely private because no police were involved and the bondsmen did not act jointly with state officials. The court therefore granted the motion, dismissed the federal claims, and entered final judgment under Rule 54(b).

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

The case involves towing companies and individuals challenging amendments to a Shreveport city ordinance that regulates 'no preference' and impound vehicle tows, including requirements for in-city storage facilities, rate schedules, rotational lists, and restrictions on solicitation. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction in state court on federal constitutional and state law grounds such as antitrust violations and First Amendment issues, after which defendants removed the case to federal court. The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claims under applicable federal and state law. The core reasoning rested on the magistrate judge's analysis of the ordinance's regulatory framework, historical practices, and the lack of evidence supporting the plaintiffs' constitutional and preemption arguments.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Joseph and Alicia Solito, who filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in 1987 and received a discharge in 1992, followed by a Chapter 7 filing in which they sought to discharge post-petition federal income tax liabilities for 1986 through 1989 that had accrued while their assets were under bankruptcy protection. The IRS claimed approximately $23,311.58 plus penalties and interest, arguing these debts were nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. §§ 507(a)(7)(A)(i) and 523(a)(1)(A) and (7). The bankruptcy court ruled the taxes were not dischargeable, applying equitable powers under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) to suspend the three-year collection period during the prior Chapter 13 case due to the automatic stay under § 362 that prevented IRS collection efforts. The district court affirmed, holding that the suspension preserved Congress's intent to give the government adequate time to pursue taxes, penalties, and interest that accrued during the protected period.

taxesprocedure